• Drewelite@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lmao, I can’t tell if this is stupid, or genius access control. Like if they had problems figuring out which one of their six employees was leaving the lock open, give them each their own lock!

    • Mr. Frog@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      You usually see these on fields that are co-owned or need to be accessed by several municipalities. Everybody gets their own key but can still have access to the area whenever needed.

      • Cha0zz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wouldn’t just duplicating the key achieve the same purpose or am I missing something?

        • The Gay Tramp@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Duplicating the key removes some accountability. With this set up you can revoke access to only one person, while leaving the access in place for everyone else. If you had a single lock with six copies then a bad actor getting a copy means you’d have to replace everyone else’s keys

          This also means one person can’t take their lock off and replace it with another, and therefore lock out everyone else

  • arandomthought@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    ngl, i kinda like this. Want to revoke access to any of the users but can’t trust them to hand back their key(s)? Np, just change their lock.

  • nicotinell@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Is it just me or removing any or both of the bottom locks wont work because the bar wont be able to pivot enough to be taken out?

    Edit: nvm you can rotate the rod and slide the bar sideways.