Abloy Safe

[Phatphish]

I was looking through some old bits and bobs I had stashed away and came across this "Safe". It has 5 abloy classic cam locks, four designated A,B,C and D with the fifth being labelled "Control". Unfortunately I only have the 4 working keys for the lettered ones but an incorrect key for the control. They all have tags with their respective letters and safe designation, this one being 12. The control key belongs to safe 18 according to the tag.
The control lock has an indent to the left of the keyway that has a green blob of paint in it.

My question is:- What was the safe for?

Obviously its not to keep something too safe, because of the glass window.
The hinge wire doubles up as some sort of carrying handle that can only be easily removed when the door is open.
The slotted hanging holes on the back of the safe imply it was meant to be moved around.
The colour of the safe suggests to me that it may have come from an electrical installation, as it was a favourite colour for the Electricity Board many moons ago.
My first guess was maybe something to do with a mining lifts/elevator cutoff feature, So all personnel have to be present before the lift/elevator can be made live. But that really was a stab in the dark. I hope one of you can enlighten me to its original purpose.

Click thumbnails for bigness!

[globallockytoo]

I would suggest it is a drug safe/container requiring at least four key holders in attendance simultaneously to prevent theft of drugs. It's about accountability.

[pjzstones]

I would suggest it is a drug safe/container requiring at least four key holders in attendance simultaneously to prevent theft of drugs. It's about accountability.

thats the first thing that came to my mine...

[braddockpicker]

I have to agree with you guys. If it had something to do with an electrical device there would be a large hole somewhere for wires to pass through.

[Phatphish]

I have to agree with you guys. If it had something to do with an electrical device there would be a large hole somewhere for wires to pass through.

You have misunderstood me.
I had imagined putting a contact breaker inside the safe, and while the shift were working the lift wouldnt work without the breaker, until all personnel had returned to the lift and the contact breaker could be retrieved from the safe and reinstalled to the lifts electrics.
It was a wild guess I know, but it did have the accountability factor that obviously surrounds this system.

Thanks for the replies so far guys!

[braddockpicker]

Yes I did misunderstand I now stand corrected. And what you are talking about makes more sense.

[unlisted]

I want!

[loki-aka]

How about an electrical control box for say - here is an off the wall one- a defence weapons system. Maybe
controlls for abort or destruct command.

Been watching too many 007 films I think.

[unlisted]

How about an electrical control box for say - here is an off the wall one- a defence weapons system. Maybe
controlls for abort or destruct command.

Been watching too many 007 films I think.

Too many end users needing authorization- the military is redundant, but only by 2- max 3 people.. in some aspects.

[braddockpicker]

I understand the military does limit access to things. But lets just say it was used during the 60's or 70's or even the cold war. Now thats a real possibility.

[unlisted]

I understand the military does limit access to things. But lets just say it was used during the 60's or 70's or even the cold war. Now thats a real possibility.

No, it really would not of been- regardless of the application. There was never anything so restricted it would require more than 3 "authorizations"- (This is North American Standard since the 2nd world war) the standard was 2 "End user authorizations" for nuke missiles- so please, what would require more than that?

This was the standard up until I was injured- in 2008- and I had pretty high clearance, as I was tasked with security and other "fun" related stuff.. ... I am sure one of the American military members on this forum can confirm this "redundancy standard"..

[zeke79]

You are right about the two persons for nukes but as far as I know it required a third person for the activation sequence to enable the weapon. It was just dual control for launch, then a third person for entering the code for activation. I have never heard of anything that required more than 3 people to access anything in the military.

Just the info I have learned from watching the military channel.

[braddockpicker]

You guys really know your stuff I guess. I don't really know I have no military experience at all.

[darklighterz7611]

the standard was 2 "End user authorizations" for nuke missiles- so please, what would require more than that? "

Yes that is an operational standard for most governments and its that way because any increase in further security measures affects the effectiveness, efficiency and speed of said action.

I have personally been privy to an electrical lock in the military which was programmed to require 4 authorised keycards to be entered into the system within a time limit to unlock.

However i can agree that almost all of the systems like this that i know of are 3 authorizations at most

[nataz]

I heard of a nuke facility with 5 or 6 person rule. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a U.S. facility. I think the point in the U.S. is that if you don't trust your staff/the insider threat is so large that 2-3 people can't be trusted with secure material then you prob just need to rehire/restaff.