Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
No need to remember, there's the actual quote from the website. Notice what's missing from this quote: "except for people who want to just clone existing cards so that homeowners and guests and tenants don't have to go through the trouble of doing it the way we, the owners of these gates, want them to."
That's missing from that quote. So - a reasonable, intuitive, somewhat intelligent person would think "Hmm - they didn't say that there were any exceptions to the rule. I want my case to be an exception. I should either a) accept that I'm not an exception or b) contact the CDD and ask if I can be an exception."
Everyone else - will think they're more important than the rules, and do as they please.
|
Those are the procedures for replacing a lost or stolen card. They say nothing about making copies of the card. I am on record as having two cards. When I sell or rent my property I need to return two cards. If I lose one of them then I'll need to replace it so that I can later return it. That is what the paragraph represents.
Similarly, I have three mailbox keys. When I move I will need to return three mailbox keys. I don't know the cost but I'm sure there is a way to pay to replace lost or stolen key.
But hey, maybe I want four mailbox keys. Why? It doesn't matter, I just want a fourth. I can head up to Ace Hardware and have a copy made, right? Wrong! On the key is clearly printed, "Do Not Duplicate." I assume (haven't looked) that the postal regulations also state, explicitly, that the keys shall not be duplicated.
When there is a rule it is plainly stated. Signs in your yard? No, there is a rule about that. Golf carts exceeding 20mph? No, there is a rule about that. Run a hair salon out of your home? No, there is a rule about that. Copy your garage door code to your car so you don't have to carry the remote? Yep, no rule against that. Copy a RFID card to a sticker that can be placed behind a mirror? Apparently no rule against that either.
Duplication of any type of credentials for an access control system is not favorably looked upon. Of course it is. Making multiple copies of the key to my house would not be favorably looked upon either. But, there is a big difference between, "we would prefer it not happen," and, "see section xx.xxx of the restrictions you agreed to."
But hey, I have no dog in this fight. It's just a pet peeve of mine to have someone say, "It's the law," when there is nothing they can point to that supports their opinion.