The safes contain a biometric reader that allows unpaired fingerprints to open the safe until a fingerprint is programmed, allowing unauthorized persons, including children, to access hazardous contents, including firearms
It’s not that the lock doesn’t work, it’s that they never set it up.
Lock should not default to “any print unlocks it until it’s programmed.” Like someone mentioned above, if you don’t add a fingerprint to your phone, then fingerprint unlock is disabled. Otherwise, anyone could get into your phone if you didn’t set up your fingerprint. And that’s a PHONE, not a gun safe.
The manufacturer should have required the physical key to be present and the safe unlocked before you can program a code or fingerprint. This is how cheap ass Amazon combo locks work. While I feel the onus is almost entirely on the parents here, the manufacturer is at the very least negligent in its design.
So, the parents thought it magically came pre-programmed with their fingerprints from the factory and went; “hey, it works out of the box, how neat is that?!”
I’m sure they could’ve/should’ve taken higher quality idiots into account when making the thing, but is it really too much to ask of parents to read a manual and verify that a lock works as it should, when it is to keep firearms out of reach from your children?
I mean, yes? It’s insane to think that a fingerprint reader is designed, by default, to open from any fingerprint.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that if you put your finger on a lock and it unlocks that you might believe it also programmed itself to use only that fingerprint.
Consumers can believe they have properly programmed the biometric feature when in fact the safe remains in the default to open mode
The problem is, everyone can have a bad day. If a user has to be at the top of their game to use a consumer device, it’s badly designed. For a safety device that’s fucking horrific.
is it really too much to ask of parents to read a manual and verify that a lock works as it should, when it is to keep firearms out of reach from your children?
The article doesn’t state whether they did or didn’t follow the instructions. They went through the effort of buying the safe, installing it, powering it, putting their guns in it, and then locking it. That suggests they probably did their best at configuring it.
Putting the onus on the consumer just makes it easy for shitty companies to keep building shitty products
It’s not that the lock doesn’t work, it’s that they never set it up.
Lock should not default to “any print unlocks it until it’s programmed.” Like someone mentioned above, if you don’t add a fingerprint to your phone, then fingerprint unlock is disabled. Otherwise, anyone could get into your phone if you didn’t set up your fingerprint. And that’s a PHONE, not a gun safe.
The manufacturer should have required the physical key to be present and the safe unlocked before you can program a code or fingerprint. This is how cheap ass Amazon combo locks work. While I feel the onus is almost entirely on the parents here, the manufacturer is at the very least negligent in its design.
So, the parents thought it magically came pre-programmed with their fingerprints from the factory and went; “hey, it works out of the box, how neat is that?!”
I’m sure they could’ve/should’ve taken higher quality idiots into account when making the thing, but is it really too much to ask of parents to read a manual and verify that a lock works as it should, when it is to keep firearms out of reach from your children?
I mean, yes? It’s insane to think that a fingerprint reader is designed, by default, to open from any fingerprint.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that if you put your finger on a lock and it unlocks that you might believe it also programmed itself to use only that fingerprint.
It’s easy to blame the user in situations like this. The recall indicates that 39 other people have had the safe fail in the same way. It also states:
The problem is, everyone can have a bad day. If a user has to be at the top of their game to use a consumer device, it’s badly designed. For a safety device that’s fucking horrific.
The article doesn’t state whether they did or didn’t follow the instructions. They went through the effort of buying the safe, installing it, powering it, putting their guns in it, and then locking it. That suggests they probably did their best at configuring it.
Putting the onus on the consumer just makes it easy for shitty companies to keep building shitty products
Sorry, but this is a really stupid thing to say. A fingerprint scanner shouldn’t work unless a fingerprint has explicitly been set up.