Re: Security fasteners

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 02:01:05 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

On 3/4/2025 1:27 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> 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)
>

I rented a competitor's instrument to test it and see what it looked
like inside. It was generously plastered with stickers that said
WARANTY VOID IF SEAL BROKEN. Fortunately, Amazon sells reels of that
exact same sticker.

It was pretty ugly inside. And the boards were signed (some people do
that) by a former employee of mine.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lq3m0xpc704us2hn59nfd/DSC06740.JPG?rlkey=9kofe5tnjblh2t06jqvyswicf&raw=1

Looks like the front-panel BNCs soldered to the bottom of the board
and the joints broke, so wires were added.