Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Security fasteners Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 09:58:30 +0000 Organization: Poppy Records Lines: 41 Message-ID: <1r8o0yw.174iprz1kbiu53N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> References: <1r8nwrf.1f4hcwebwz608N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> X-Trace: individual.net o/0GuRepMuVmy640mEAtNQUJQYVkAGU4F8KMOQoc7CVw1ZDuhi X-Orig-Path: liz Cancel-Lock: sha1:CbhD9g2Vuro1pXQFSlJwVvbByPE= sha256:zFk6MI32HNktNoWaa/wZiI0gW2ZcPbERb3WVb69exYM= User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6 Bytes: 2240 Don Y wrote: > On 3/4/2025 1:27 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote: > > Don Y wrote: > > > >> What value "security fasteners"? One can purchase "drivers" > >> for damn near any of them, cheap. > >> > >> Is the intent to discourage *casual* disassembly (given that > >> anyone determined to do so can purchase same)? Perhaps to > >> be able to argue (in a court of law) that the other party > >> took "extraordinary measures" to gain access to the internals > >> of your product (so, if he was injured in the process, it > >> shouldn't fall on your shoulders) > >> > >> Or, the hope of *actually* preventing disassembly? > >> > >> I.e., wouldn't a tamper-proof "seal" be cheaper and more > >> conclusive? > > > > In the UK, the seals are now designated "Tamper Evident" - which is more > > accurate. > > Yes, that is likely the designation, here, as well. > > Note that even they (at least adhesive ones) aren't > "tamper proof" *or* "evident" as one can remove all traces > of the seal and REPLACE it with another, identical, mass > produced seal. > > (This is why holographic seals have been used) Some can be carefully soaked off with the appropriate solvent and then replaced after the item has been reassembled - I am not at liberty to tell you how I know this. -- ~ Liz Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk