Re: Security fasteners

On 3/4/2025 3:17 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
 

On 3/4/2025 2:58 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

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)

>
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.

>
Most of the ones that I have encountered have "perforated" adhesives
(for want of a better term).  As you remove the seal, portions of the
adhesive remain behind -- i.e., they adhere more strongly to the
applied surface than to the seal, itself.

 You need to soak it longer and peel from both ends and the sides   ;-)

That increases effort and time.  To a "John Doe", neither may be
important as deterrents.  To a *business* (e.g., someone refilling
printer cartridges), BOTH likely would!
Which brings me back to my original question:
   Is the goal to discourage or prevent disassembly?  *Or*, to leave
   *evidence* of said activities?