The correct support for a just cause must have been constructive: providing financial support for the defendant, public manifestation campaign, professional lobbying, etc

Although this time I agree with the defendant cause, the response by the public was as toxic bullying as the plaintiff, only stronger.

After the video reached 1.5M views (over a couple years), the video was eventually demonetized (no official reason given). I suspect there was a similarly-frivolous DMCA / claim, but at that point in my life I didn't have any money (was worth negative) so I just accepted YouTube's ruling.

Eventually shut down the account, not wanting to help thieves bypass one of the most-common utility locks around — but definitely am in a position now where I understand that videos like mine and McNally's force manufacturers to actually improve their locks' securities/mechanisms.

It is lovely now to see that the tolerances on the #175 have been tightened enough that a paperclip no longer defeats the lock (at least non-destructively); but thin high-tensile picks still do the trick (of bypassing the lock) via the exact same mechanism.

Locks keep honest people honest, but to claim Master's products high security is inherently dishonest (e.g. in their advertising). Thievery is about ease of opportunity; if I were stealing from a jobsite with multiple lockboxes, the ones with Master locks would be attacked first (particularly wafer cylinders).

For those interested in the actual case, here's some deeper coverage of this bruhaha including how Lee may have perjured himself during deposition.

Someone : “Sucks to see how many people take everything they see online for face value,” one Proven employee wrote. “Sounds like a bunch of liberals lol.”

The company : Proven also had its lawyers file “multiple” DMCA takedown notices against the McNally video, claiming that its use of Proven’s promo video was copyright infringement.

When did facts and enlightenment started to be for "liberals lol" ?

Freedom of speech based on facts should be universal.

I wonder if anybody tried suing him…

Granted, in this day and age, it's a disgrace to still make locks that can be shimmed. Especially when the shim-proof alternatives they show just have an additional notch to catch the shim.

Sometimes a single question tells you how the entire case is going to go.

> Proven also made a highly unusual request: Would the judge please seal almost the entire court record—including the request to seal?

Tough at first then running away with the tail between their legs. Typical bullying behavior.

> but Proven complained about a “pattern of intimidation and harassment by individuals influenced by Defendant McNally’s content.”

They have to know it's generated by their own lawsuit and how they approached it, right? They can't be that oblivious to turn around and say "Judge, look at all the craziness this generated, we just have to seal the records!". It's like an ice-cream cone that licks itself.

> the case became a classic example of the Streisand Effect, in which the attempt to censor information can instead call attention to it.

A constant reminder to keep the people who don't know what they are doing (including the owners of the company!) from the social media.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/proven-industr...

They expensed a sledgehammer and obtained the password through physical modification of the safe using a careful application of force. Some employees complained that meant the safe wasn't... well, safe.

The security team replied "Working as Intended" - no safe is truly safe, it's just designed to slow down an attacker. At that moment, I was enlightened.

Some people always go too far, undermining the good cause of the others

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3WVme9LAcQ&list=PLo0bMOObfk...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NadPAE6BDbA

It is interesting to see that these companies still don't know about the Streisand Effect or they choose to think that it won't happen to them.

When he published about this he was bombarded with messages from locksmiths complaining that they all knew about this and kept it secret for a reason! https://www.mattblaze.org/papers/kiss.html

It was a fascinating clash between computer security principles - disclose vulnerabilities - and physical locksmith culture, which was all about trade secrets.

Emotionally I disagree with you. It feels like a bully is getting what a bully deserves. Logically, I think you are right though. Crowds just aren’t equipped to handle these situations. There are cases where the wisdom of the crowd is correct, but there are many more where it multiplies harms.

The underlying problem is that it never feels like justice is being served. Another comment mentions that there should be harsher punishment for false DMCAs. I don’t think the “wisdom of the crowd” approach is the best way to write those wrongs but I lament that modern justice has not been up to the task.

People can make fun of the company all they want. That’s fair game. They shouldn’t be calling the guy’s personal phone or harassing his family, that’s totally over the line.

But nothing happens. The behavior gets a pass so it continues to become more common. That passes for debate now.

McNally obviously did the correct thing it seeking counsel and basically demolishing Proven's case in court. Too bad the SLAPP stuff doesn't work with DMCA takedowns.

And everyone else cheering on the sidelines (who isn't a paid shill of Proven's like the guy making the "liberal" comment)? Well giving Lee's company shit is fine IMHO. Call up the publicly available phone numbers, make service requests to flood his business etc. Fine with me. You poke the Internet bear, you get some claws.

As to the threats? If they actually occurred (which is questionable considering the BS Proven has been saying), then let the authorities know about them. That's not on McNally at all, it's more Lee being a jerk who doesn't know about the Streisand Effect, combined with social media companies that allow stuff like that to happen. It's also a good idea to not expose too much info about your personal life on social media that can be linked to your business, opsec ya know?

I think you're confusing who filed the lawsuit here. That was also the lock company owner as well (Lee/Proven).

While I agree that flash mob harassment from the Internet is a terrible dynamic, filing baseless lawsuits has been a longstanding way to predictably summon them. So if the table stakes of launching or defending these type of aggressive attacks have gone from a significant amount of money for attorneys, to a significant amount of money for attorneys plus public relations and/or having a large audience, does that really actually change much? Either way most people simply don't file lawsuits, even if they've been actually wronged, due to the extreme personal stress.

The straightforward way of diminishing mob justice is to make people believe the system provides justice. If we lived in a society where McNally would predictably win the lawsuit [0], and be predictably compensated for his expenses/time/emotionalDistress for being on the receiving end of this baseless SLAPP, then there would be much less mob outrage to begin with. As it stands, everyone can imagine themselves receiving these types of legal shakedown letters, but having much less power to push back.

[0] it sounds like this particular suit was slapped down pretty hard and "quick" by the standards of the legal system, but there are many similar cases that don't go this way

To be fair that's not what we have in USA. For instance, a nurse who never even signed a private privacy agreement with anyone (unusual, but could happen) could violate HIPAA if they factually tell a patient's spouse the patient is being treated for AIDS and they ought to watch out.

How so? And what region are you referring to? There are many countries in the world with vastly different laws.

0: https://youtu.be/IJ-a2KeyCAY?si=cIcawm3U5-55nI2D&t=252

I'm just guessing based on the contents of the article, but it sounds like a typical "hard-fist founder-run company" so good luck convincing the founder to not sit on social media and argue their points.

It didn't. That's one employee of the company, who has a clear bias in the matter, being ridiculous. It has nothing to do with liberal ideology, nor critique of liberal ideology, nor whatever sort of person that employee thinks should be considered a "liberal", nor their ideology. It's only the employee who even suggests that, and probably not even seriously.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRozAbaKs9M

I watched his video on high-security shipping container locks. Jeez, two minutes long? They must be tough!

No, it was two minutes long because he bypassed ten of them, one after the other.

In practice, in addition to the usual bugs you would expect from a software-based system managed and maintained by a plethora of organizations and contractors, they tend to become very annoying as parts wear out, so you have to fiddle with the key reinserting it repeatedly trying to find just the right angle so it will make a good contact to be recognized by the lock (for example the iLOQ system by my landlord communicates over a thin contact strip molded into the key opposite of the cutting and separated from the rest of the key with a thin layer of plastic).

This is arguably good PR, but a terrible response. Shimming is so quick and hard to detect that even if you had 24-7 video of the lock, you probably wouldn't notice that the lock had been shimmed. You would just assume that someone lost a key.

It's still online: https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/anarchy_and_privacy_contro...

He partnered with some radio program called radradio where the host had a lot of personal issues and the show ultimately got axed. The radio host was known for having issues with alcohol, but they kept partnering with him because he kept shilling their WeFunder. They've raised over $6m in SAFEs but considering they are $9m in debt, haven't broken $100k lifetime revenue after 7 years, and seem to have over a million a year burn rate, it's doubtful that the shares from those SAFEs (if ever executed) would ever be in the money.

Yeah, one of my conclusions after years of watching LPL is ironically to start buying cheaper locks.

The difference between a $3 and a $300 lock is just about a minute of time for an experienced lockpick. No lock is capable of dissuading a determined thief, but any lock is equally capable of dissuading a lazy one.

    All Security
    Hinges on the arrival
    Of people with guns

https://m.youtube.com/@provenindustries8236