Official Launch of Locksport International

[sivlogkart]

I would go with that.

LPN rules are:

1) We have nothing to do with criminal activity, and consider
lockpicking to be a sport or hobby, in exactly the same way as
martial arts clubs consider fighting. Any mention of criminal
activity in our meetings and you are out.

2) No well-motivated question is too stupid to ask, and anyone who
makes a person feel that a question was too stupid to ask is out.
We are here out of interest in how locks work and in learning ways
to open them.

3) You must agree to these conditions on arrival at our meeting by
signing below.

[digital_blue]

As has been mentioned before, the bulk of the rules are there to prevent any misunderstanding, bickering, etc about the meaning of this, that or the other. They provide us on the board (who are ultimately responsible for the successful operation of this organization) the needed clout to deal with bad apples in a quick and clear manner. There is little room for someone to say "Oh, I didn't know that was against the rules". Please understand that I don't intent to belittle the rules or the importance of them, but it is worth considering that if you are playing on the right side of the road, your actions will never be held up for inspection, right?

I really hope that what I'm about to say does not come across as arrogant, but I have to ask at this point.... for those that still have concerns regarding the rules (as they are now), are the concerns you bring forward out of geniune concern about your ability to participate and adhere to them, or has this turned into an academic discussion on the merits of this rule or that? We could spend the next decade going over the details and finer points of this scenario or that scenario, but I am at this point quite comfortable with the Rules of Conduct as they exist right now.

If anyone feels that these rules do not allow them to participate in LSI, please bring that up to one of us. It is not our wish or desire to exclude good people. It is merely our wish to protect all of us from bad people.

Cheers!

db

[sivlogkart]

Basically, if I agree to the rules, I will obey them, so the exact rules matter to me. For a person who is happy to bend them, the exact rules matter less, just the spirit of them matters.

[Varjeal]

Well in that case I'm afraid the rules are as they are. DB has explained our intent well, and the rules are in place.

I feel I can personally participate in LSI without breaking the code or affecting my participation on this site, or the other endeavours I am in. Each will have to decide in their own conscience what they can and wish to do.

[TOWCH]

If 2 and 3 can be read as assumed license in areas lacking a licensing system then I think the issues with them are cleared up but I would probably note that in the rules. A couple of things did catch my eye as I was reading through the rest of the rules though.

What does 13 mean? Am I reading correctly that you are supposed to forfeit your 5th amendment rights to join LSI? 10 also seems a bit disturbing. You would have to get the chapter president's permission to sell something in the Buy, Sell, Trade forum?

[Varjeal]

If your 5th amendment right means to be able to lie, cheat and steal without accepting the consequence to your actions, then yes.

Rule 10 refers to chapter meetings and events specifically...

(an aside) I find it amusing that some people want generally lax "laws" so that they can enjoy the sport while others apparently need addendums after each pair of words to explicity state their meaning with examples attached. Makes it kinda difficult to balance. If we spent as much time getting groups meeting together and enjoying the sport as we do "debating" the letter of the COC, we'd be well on our way to a successful organization by now.

[treboR]

What does 13 mean? Am I reading correctly that you are supposed to forfeit your 5th amendment rights to join LSI?

The 5th amendment only applies to U.S. citizens while in the U.S..
LSI is an International organization, and is under no obligation to adhere to the U.S. constitution.

[digital_blue]

@ Varj: Here here!

A couple points to make. I tend to agree that the wording on #10 does not clarify that it applies to members acting in the capacity of a locksport meeting. It's probably worth an adjustment to the wording to make that clearer because the intent is not to prevent people using our own site's Buy/Sell forum. There is some good reason to be concerned that members would indiscriminently sell tools in areas where that may be regulated and/or illegal. Also, since we have chosen not to restrict membership to those of the age of majority, I think there was some mental images of minor members selling picks to friends and the like. I'm not sure exactly how far to go with this. We're not out to control people's lives, but we are interested in insuring that members, through the course of involvement with LSI, are not exposing the club to possible legal difficulties as a result of their actions.

I think that perhaps simply making a note to the effect of "during a LSI meeting or in relation to their involvement with LSI". Something like that.

Also, having had a discussion with Varjeal on the matter (in reponse to a point raised in a PM from a member here), we both agreed that there should be some additional clause added to rule #8 to allow for a person who has paid their debt for a felony crime and lived a clean life for a period of time. I'm leaning toward something to the effect of limiting membership to any person who has a previous conviction for a felony crime to no sooner than 5 years after the full sentence and/or conditions and/or parole has been completed. In other words, if you've done some really bad crap in the past, but have paid your debt in full and lived a clean, crime-free life for 5 years after that, you would not be denied access to LSI. If, however, and existing member were to be convicted of a felony crime, their membership would be terminated immediately and reinstated only once the above conditions were met, and only at the discression of the board.

#13 can be summed up like this. Co-operate with authorities at all times when it comes to any investigation related to our club or any of it's members. I don't feel that this is a compromising of anyones 5th amendment rights. I think in most cases, your own employer would expect the same of you. If there was a crime that happened in connection to your place of work, and the authorities were snooping around your jobsite asking questions, I suspect your employer would want you to cooperate fully. Though you (in this case Americans) may have the right to refuse to answer questions, I don't think it would tend to be a wise career move. So, if an LSI member was questioned at some point as a result of their involvement with LSI, we would expect complete co-operation. If a member, at that time, felt that this was a violation of their rights and chose not to co-operate, they would be more than welcome to turn in their LSI membership, no hard feelings.
By the way, the reason this particular rule is so important to LSI (and near and dear to my heart) is that we wish to remain on the right side of the law and of law enforcers. We have a strong desire to, in a sense, "legitimize" locksports and this is a fundimental part of it. We do not with to be viewed as the "renegade hacker types" that I think we are so often associated with.

I think that's fair.

Look for the above changes to be introduced in the near future (read "when I get some time 'cause I've been pretty busy lately")

db

[TOWCH]

Varjeal, I think you misunderstood my concern. I am not concerned about self incrimination. I would not agree to incriminate someone else just because a cop asks nicely. Betraying confidence is not something I take lightly. Although I've never had to bite my tongue to keep from incriminating myself, I've been asked to incriminate others multiple times. That's what brought that about.

RobertB, my question was not implying that LSI had any obligation to adhere to the constitution. I was asking if I understood correctly that US members are agreeing to universally waive their 5th ammendment rights by joining LSI. That's not a trivial agreement. Seeing as a large number of the members of this forum are United States citizens, even though LSI is not obligated to, taking in to account the implications the rules as they stand have might be a good idea.

I probably should have been more clear in my orginal post. Sorry for the confusion.

[treboR]

Towch, I was just messing around.

Personally I think that in order to make the locksport phenomenon grow, we should make joining associations as easy and pain free as possible.

It should be as easy as joining a bowling league. I know that alot of you think that we have to keep an elevated measure of security, because of the potential to use our craft for crime. Consider this, I can throw a bowling ball through a window faster than I can pick a door. I can also smash someone in the head with a bowling ball. The potential for crime exists everywhere.

If we want to be more accepted by the public, then we need to be more accepting of the public.

I think that having members sign an affidavit that they will follow their local laws regarding picks and picking is sufficiant.

[sivlogkart]

I can see that at some stage DB has to go with what he has, so I am not trying to twist his arm any more (it is already spinning).

But the reactions above are the reactions from many I have been in touch with in London. About half could just about go with DB's rules and half cannot (at the moment). The suggestion in various forms from these people is to have a single rule:

Obey the letter of the law and the spirit of the law at all times, and report those who do not to the group leader and the police.

Also even if someone is obeying this rule, he can be removed from the group anyway if we don't like or trust him, but that is true of any club.

So many I know are happy to be here on LP101, and a lot more hopefully will soon join (and not just watch). And they think it might be better to have a local group, along the lines of LSI and hopefully links with them but with maybe just the rule above.

DB seems to think this discussion is slowing him down, but if this was to take-off, a slightly later start with a faster growth rate would win in the end. With the changes DB has already suggested to his rules, I could go with them but only just, but I would loose interested people here for sure with them.

I am impressed though with what DB has done, and was some time ago planning to do the same, hence signing up a URL for a LOCKPICKER NETwork. However, DB has started and if at all possible we should all try to make it work.

One think to keep in mind though is the way things are done in different parts of the world are different, and we also need rules that read as if they are for everyone, and avoid local terms.

[digital_blue]

Ok, let me address a couple things.

For starters, I don't think the bowling ball example holds any merit, because the general public and law enforcement don't tend to look on bowling leagues as a suspicious bunch with bad motives. We are in a unique situation and I truly believe that we on the board owe it to LSI to take every reasonable precaution to avoid the unethical element. Also, it is my hope that by making the rules as strict as they are we are better equiped to present ourselves as a professional and upstanding organization.

As well, I don't feel at all that this discussion is "slowing me down". Some very good and valid points have come from it and have had an influence on shaping the Rules of Conduct.

Please understand when I say this that in no way to I wish to imply that I don't value and appreciate the input that people have given here. But surely everyone understands the following:
1) You can't please everybody 100% of the time.
2) At some point this discussion must be put to bed and it obviously can't wait until everyone is satisfied.

Also, I really hope that people understand where we're coming from here. We have had to make a number of judgement calls throughout the formation of LSI. Each of us on the board saw a need and an opportunity to do something for the lockpicking community, and it is our hope that this endeavour will far outlast even our own involvement in it. Our decision to take an obvious hard line when it comes to the rules of conduct is not without its price. I feel comfortable speaking on behalf of the board when I say that, though we understand that our hard line approach will discourage some people from being a part of LSI, the net benefit of this approach outweighs the cost. You may not agree. You're also entitled to your opinion, but we decided to pick up this ball and run with it and the best we can do is make decisions that come from our heart, and from our passion for locksports, and do what we feel is in the best interest for LSI.

Trak: I understand that some of the folks in your sphere of influence will feel that they can not participate in LSI as a result of our decisions. That is their choice. I don't really feel that our R.O.C. excludes anyone with the right motives and right attitude toward lockpicking, but if they feel that they'd rather not participate then I am sorry to hear that, but it is a choice they will make.

TOWCH: I do understand your position, but I honestly have to say I don't agree with it. My own personal view on morality clearly tells me that if I knew a friend of mine was breaking the law, and I was questioned by the police, I would be obligated to tell them what I know. What I can tell you is that long before it got to that point, I would confront my friend about their actions, and give them an opportunity to make things right. It is from this perspective that the rules regarding cooperation with law enforcment are written. I don't mean this to sound judgemental at all, and please don't take this as being directed specifically at you, but I really don't want *anybody* who would allow a friend involved in LSI to be breaking the law and not do anything about it.


So, having said all that, I really would like to put the issue of the Rules of Conduct to bed. We have listened and considered all of the posts on the subject. We have made some changes (and a few more are to come), but after these latest changes have been made, we will feel very comfortable with our Rules of Conduct as it is. I do understand that this will not be to the pleasure of everyone. Please don't think that I've taken any of this lightly. I most certainly have not. I genuinely appreciate the interest that people have taken, and their efforts in contibuting their thoughts in the interest in making LSI better. It has not gone unnoticed.

Cheers!

db

[sivlogkart]

Well, I certainly wish you the best of luck.

I do agree that lockpicking, for some reason, does produce some
extreme reactions: "What!! A lockpicking club here!! Who the hell
started that. ...", so you need to make it clear it is out of interest
only, and not for a tax free income.

Also the discussion we have had here on LP101 will hopefully be read
by many who might then understand better why DB did things the way he
did. I am getting the people in London I know to read all this too.

Also I too would report any known criminal to the police, even if it
were a friend, as I once did.

One problem with the current version of the rules is there total
length. If I sign something I read it carefully. If the rules had
been a single sheet, I could do that quickly and I would be happy with
it. But many people around here see this huge mass of text, and
already have a smile saying something like, I bet this is from over
the pond. It is not the way we do things here. If there were less rules,
but on a single sheet of paper, which we could sign, and then
additional guidelines for more on the spirit of LSI, I think this
would have been better.

Also with a lot of people in the UK telling them not to do something
that they would not have wanted or thought of doing can have the
opposite effect. "Don't push this button!" ... "Don't push it
again!".

This is my last comment in this section of LP101, so DB get going, and
again good luck.

[treboR]

I don't think the bowling ball example holds any merit, because the general public and law enforcement don't tend to look on bowling leagues as a suspicious bunch with bad motives.db

I believe that there are many more suspicious people with bad motives in the bowling community than in the locksport community. The difference is that they do not treat bowling as a potential criminal activity.

Having grown up around law enforcement(father is retired police officer), I can assure you that when YOU treat your activities as a potential for criminal activity so do the police. Having a significant amount of your rules dedicated to what to tell and how to cooperate with the police will not make the organization look more professional, it will only make it look more suspicious. The same way having D.A.R.E. bumper stickers on your car does.(Police know that alot of drug users/dealers put those on their car).

I can see your reasoning. I just do not think it will work the way you want it to. The criminal element will just lie to get in, and they won't follow the rules anyway. Acting like this super secret club is so easy to use for crime(therefore all of these specific rules about criminal activity are necessary) will only attract them.

This of coarse is just my opinion.
I will be quiet now.