Sabotage investigation of fiber cuts in Northwest

Mon Nov 3 15:07:42 UTC 2003

Maybe I'm missing something, but, if you have the bolt cutters, I don't
see why you need the key to an adjacent lock or any of the locks.
Additionally, most of these things are in remote enough locations that
you are unlikely to be observed using the bolt cutters to gain access
to the site.  It's not like the requirement for a set of bolt cutters
is a high barrier to entry for a thug that wants into the site.

John is right about American Towers.  They use the same combination at
ALL of their sites and their security company will happily tell anyone
that they think should have access what the "standard" combination is.

American Tower is one of the worst-run operations I have ever encountered.

Owen

--On Monday, November 3, 2003 2:59 AM -0500 Paul Timmins <paul at timmins.net> 
wrote:

>
> Indeed many places have multiple padlocks locked together and then
> hooked to a chain. Any padlock opened unlocks the chain. This really
> only works for chained shut gates, but it's works rather well, and you
> can revoke access with the key from an adjacent lock and a pair of
> boltcutters.
> This is how the cell companies seem to do it around here in East
> Michigan, and it seems to work quite well. Point being, they should have
> -some- way to lock the place up so not just anyone can waltz in and cut
> fibers. It can't really be that hard.
> -Paul
>
> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 01:24, JC Dill wrote:
>> At 08:53 PM 11/2/2003, you wrote:
>> > I'm fairly certain that the telco huts or CO's have to accomodate
>> > multiple groups having access, so I'd bet that a padlock probably is a
>> > tough sell
>>
>> There are special latches that accommodate multiple padlocks, where
>> unlocking any one padlock opens the latch.  They are routinely used on
>> private gates in remote areas where each property owner (and the local
>> fire  department) have individual locks on the gate and opening any one
>> lock  allows access.
>>
>> One such device is shown on here:
>>
>> <http://www.tayhope.com/mlus.htm>
>>
>> jc
>>
> --
> Paul Timmins <paul at timmins.net>
>

-- 
If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20031103/06709407/attachment.sig>