if you could

[l0cked0ut]

the ultimate lock would probably involve a scanning device capable of identifying the user by a checkpoint system of millions of unique features of the persons brain (since one can lose other parts and still survive) If the system detects patterns of mental distress as to determine that the person is being held hostage or in a similar predicament, the system releases a gas sleep agent to knock everyone out and then calls the authorities.

If attempts at unauthorized entry are encountered, the system locks the bandit in (whatever way is preferred) and contacts the authorities.

[Chrispy]

Now what we have to do, is take our ideas to a major lock company and BAM! We're millionaires.

[Lowtech]

A lock that works on thoughts(your mind) would be interesting, after all everyone thinks differently, would be interesting. As is often said, there are ways around almost eveything if you put your mind to it. Fingerprints - use a persons finger or what they did in the movie dropzone. Optical- maybe what they did in the movie Judge Dread. Just my thoughts as much as they are after bar

[mcm757207]

use a persons finger or what they did in the movie dropzone.

Won't work with capacitance-based finger print scanners, body has to be living for electricity to be present in your hand.

[hzatorsk]

if you could make the ultimate lock what would it be? I mean if you had no restictions whatsoever e.g. Money, Materials, a bunch lock boffins (just if you need help)

Are you looking for the ulimate lock... or... the ultimate in security? Very different as NO lock by itself will protect you from a determined intruder.

Most security experts will tell you that security must be implemented 'in-depth' (as: in layers). A physical security component such as a lock is adequate at protecting only so much 'asset' from only so much 'risk'.

I don't care how much engineering and technology you put into securing a particular asset with a lock... if will be inadequate by itself if a determined intruder wants to comprimise it.

As an extreme example: Consider that a subject puts a gun to your spouse's/child's head and says... "Hey... jamesphilhulk2, Open this lock!". Whadda going to do?

With all respect... too much emphasis is put on the lock. Better... would be a layered approach including at least a few components of: fences, lighting, cameras, guards, dogs, alarms, heavy safes, etc.

Would I spend a fortune on the single ultimate lock? or... would I invest in a layered approach where failure in one does not comprimise the others?

Given that I have 'no restrictions in money or materials'.... I would not bother to actually use a lock at all. You'd have to get past my Sentry guns first:

http://cs-people.bu.edu/aaron/turret/turret.htm

z

[illusion]

Well think about it this way: on a door you have some serious locks... but next to the dor is an open window. I think I know which I'd choose.

but then you could consider getting a dog to sit by the window to prevent entry if the window is left open- well sure the intruder gets in, but say it's a Rotweiler, they aint getting out with anything. That

and a lock is only as strong as the door itself is. I once saw a door which had been broken into - the thieves had cut around the lock itself, in a kind of semi circle, so technicaly the lock was still active, but the door had been compromised. a good floodlight in front of your house will mean that most people will not even go near to the house at night. ESPECIALY if there are rottweilers in a kennel by the front door.

But then there is the back door so you have to defend that.

so security relies many systems to make it as secure as possible. not all of these are necisacrily mechanical. I personaly like the idea of truckers holding shotguns at every door. but what if you could get a Mr.T at every door?

[Chrispy]

Some things may be pick proof, but everything can be bypassed.