1
00:00:00,920 --> 00:00:05,360
Welcome, welcome everybody to a very unusual DEF CON.

2
00:00:05,360 --> 00:00:13,740
Lots of things are different, lots of things are staying the same, including, as always, the open organization of Lockpickers, Lockpick Village.

3
00:00:13,740 --> 00:00:15,460
We're so glad you're here.

4
00:00:15,500 --> 00:00:23,480
We hope that you can learn some things, have some fun, walk out more fired up about hacking and lockpicking than you arrived.

5
00:00:23,580 --> 00:00:28,300
My particular part of this today is law school for lockpickers.

6
00:00:28,300 --> 00:00:30,060
What even is that?

7
00:00:30,140 --> 00:00:34,760
Well, by way of background, I'm Preston Thomas, a former board member of TOOL.

8
00:00:34,760 --> 00:00:41,360
I'm a licensed attorney barred in the District of Columbia and in California, which is, importantly, different than barred from D.C.

9
00:00:41,360 --> 00:00:42,480
and California.

10
00:00:42,580 --> 00:00:48,520
I've done this talk before, including at DEF CON, but 2020 has brought this topic into a new light.

11
00:00:48,520 --> 00:00:58,240
Security research of all kinds, from hacking, reverse engineering, social engineering, lockpicking, these all rely on civil liberties of an open society with rule of law.

12
00:00:58,240 --> 00:01:00,420
Hacking is, by nature, subversive.

13
00:01:00,420 --> 00:01:01,740
Lockpicking is no different.

14
00:01:01,740 --> 00:01:10,060
So , like journalists and priests and security researchers, our job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

15
00:01:10,440 --> 00:01:12,680
We can do things many people don't understand.

16
00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:20,080
For certain types of people, encountering something they don't understand makes them nervous, irrational, maybe even angry.

17
00:01:20,680 --> 00:01:31,720
I should note, I've worked with TOOL for almost ten years and been a lawyer for longer, and when people get nervous, irrational, or angry about lockpicking topics, it often ends up on my plate.

18
00:01:31,720 --> 00:01:32,940
Falls to me to explain.

19
00:01:32,960 --> 00:01:36,700
I've had this particular conversation hundreds of times.

20
00:01:36,700 --> 00:01:39,840
So, this talk today, it isn't for you.

21
00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:41,080
It's for me.

22
00:01:41,080 --> 00:01:50,440
I want to recruit all of you into my crusade to push back on the tide of bullshit about laws and lockpicking and how the two interact.

23
00:01:50,440 --> 00:01:52,340
I'm tired.

24
00:01:52,340 --> 00:01:56,000
I want to be done talking about this, but people won't let me.

25
00:01:56,280 --> 00:01:57,220
Help me.

26
00:01:57,220 --> 00:01:58,120
Please.

27
00:01:58,540 --> 00:01:59,880
Let's do this.

28
00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:04,260
To begin with, I am a lawyer.

29
00:02:04,260 --> 00:02:06,640
I am not, however, your lawyer.

30
00:02:07,200 --> 00:02:09,720
This is so, so not legal advice.

31
00:02:09,720 --> 00:02:14,060
The only advice I'm going to give you today is don't get your legal advice from a guy at a con.

32
00:02:14,060 --> 00:02:16,240
Also, my opinions are my own.

33
00:02:16,240 --> 00:02:18,720
They don't represent TOOL or anyone I work for.

34
00:02:18,720 --> 00:02:20,060
Standard disclaimer.

35
00:02:20,640 --> 00:02:25,240
Law & Order was a great show because half was the cops and half was the lawyers.

36
00:02:25,280 --> 00:02:32,120
For the law part, you can just Google what the laws are in a specific jurisdiction or how to talk to a law enforcement officer.

37
00:02:32,120 --> 00:02:34,060
There's great stuff on YouTube about that.

38
00:02:34,060 --> 00:02:36,040
This is not that talk.

39
00:02:36,040 --> 00:02:42,760
This talk is more the second part, the order part, about why lockpicking laws are the way they are.

40
00:02:42,880 --> 00:02:48,760
And what it means for you as a practitioner dealing with lots of non-practitioners.

41
00:02:49,320 --> 00:02:54,240
Everyone has legal theories about lots of parts of daily life, not just lockpicking.

42
00:02:54,240 --> 00:02:56,260
Most of them are workable.

43
00:02:56,260 --> 00:02:57,920
Some of them are nonsensical.

44
00:02:57,920 --> 00:03:00,020
Some of them are absolutely bananas.

45
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,320
And where do loopy legal theories tend to come from?

46
00:03:04,200 --> 00:03:05,660
Armchair lawyers.

47
00:03:05,680 --> 00:03:10,820
Armchair lawyers everywhere with their good old University of Wikipedia law degree.

48
00:03:10,820 --> 00:03:15,360
And their specialty area is something I like to call folk law.

49
00:03:15,360 --> 00:03:20,500
These are guys' ideas about law that everyone seems to know, but no one really seems to know where they came from.

50
00:03:20,500 --> 00:03:30,500
This is, I want my one phone call, or if you ask someone if they're a cop, they have to tell you, or I don't have to pay income taxes because I live in the free state of Jefferson.

51
00:03:31,820 --> 00:03:41,900
Because of folk law and all the people opining about it and spouting off about it, Googling about lockpicking laws on the Internet is worse than Googling about that weird rash.

52
00:03:41,900 --> 00:03:44,120
So let's get real.

53
00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:47,160
Today, let's do this law school style.

54
00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:52,320
We're going to be concrete, specific, and clear in how we use words.

55
00:03:53,380 --> 00:03:57,500
Let's start off this law school for lockpickers by building a law.

56
00:03:57,500 --> 00:04:05,780
Let's build a criminal statute called the Possession of Burglary Tools, because that's almost always what we're talking about when we're talking about the legality of lockpicks.

57
00:04:05,900 --> 00:04:08,420
Criminal laws are constructed of elements.

58
00:04:08,420 --> 00:04:14,640
These elements are what need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before someone can be legally found guilty of a crime.

59
00:04:14,640 --> 00:04:18,320
In the case of a burglary tool statute, there's usually two elements.

60
00:04:18,540 --> 00:04:28,380
Possession is physically having a tool or device, including lockpicks, and intent means criminal mindset, i.e., you intend to do something that is against the law.

61
00:04:28,500 --> 00:04:32,200
You can call this formula Possession plus Intent.

62
00:04:32,840 --> 00:04:35,100
Now, intent is difficult to get at.

63
00:04:35,100 --> 00:04:36,620
It's in your head.

64
00:04:37,040 --> 00:04:39,240
It's not something the court has access to.

65
00:04:39,240 --> 00:04:42,840
So, typically in a court of law, it's shown through circumstances.

66
00:04:42,840 --> 00:04:53,000
In other words, part of the district attorney's job is to show circumstances that make it beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had crime in mind at the time they possessed lockpicks.

67
00:04:53,000 --> 00:04:57,160
No circumstances, no intent, no intent, no crime.

68
00:04:57,380 --> 00:05:00,220
In most states, it's as simple as that.

69
00:05:00,220 --> 00:05:06,260
Mere possession of lockpicks without any circumstances indicating unlawful intent, not a crime.

70
00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:11,580
You look across, you can see that is the vast majority of states.

71
00:05:11,580 --> 00:05:17,040
We colored them green just because it's nice, it's soothing, it sends the right message across.

72
00:05:17,320 --> 00:05:24,420
But what about those shadowy places you say in your best Jonathan Taylor Thomas 1994 Simba voice?

73
00:05:25,320 --> 00:05:28,760
Remember how I said intent was really hard to get at?

74
00:05:28,760 --> 00:05:30,860
The court can't know it's in someone's mind.

75
00:05:30,860 --> 00:05:36,680
So, who better to provide evidence about the state of someone's mind than the person themselves?

76
00:05:36,760 --> 00:05:43,540
That is the thinking behind that minority of states that just throw up their hands and say, you tell me.

77
00:05:43,840 --> 00:05:47,980
I'm looking at you, Virginia, Ohio, Mississippi, Nevada.

78
00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:56,260
Laws change over time, but they pretty much solidify down to these four as having the possession plus intent formulation.

79
00:05:56,800 --> 00:06:04,500
So, these states, they write their burglary tools so that possession of lockpicks is prima facie evidence of intent to commit a crime.

80
00:06:04,500 --> 00:06:06,380
We'll talk about prima facie here in a second.

81
00:06:06,620 --> 00:06:08,740
Here's an example from the Code of Virginia.

82
00:06:09,240 --> 00:06:14,060
For those of you who like to follow along, this is Criminal Code 18.2-94.

83
00:06:14,140 --> 00:06:24,940
The possession of such burglary as tools, implements, or outfit by any person other than a licensed dealer shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to commit burglary, robbery, or larceny.

84
00:06:26,280 --> 00:06:29,080
So, let's talk about that prima facie word.

85
00:06:29,080 --> 00:06:31,660
It's not law school without some Latin.

86
00:06:31,660 --> 00:06:33,080
Let's dive into it.

87
00:06:33,080 --> 00:06:39,080
Prima facie, Latin, literally means on first face, or on first impression, you can figure.

88
00:06:39,880 --> 00:06:46,840
In plain English, that means if I didn't know better, I'd say something.

89
00:06:46,840 --> 00:06:49,120
I'd say you're up to no good.

90
00:06:49,680 --> 00:06:54,620
Turning that back into legal language, that's referred to as a rebuttable presumption.

91
00:06:54,620 --> 00:06:57,420
It's a presumption because it starts off set to true.

92
00:06:57,420 --> 00:06:58,600
Default value, true.

93
00:06:58,600 --> 00:07:02,080
It's rebuttable because that default value can be changed.

94
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:05,960
Which means the ball is in your court.

95
00:07:05,960 --> 00:07:10,540
Or, in more colloquial terms, prima facie means splainer.

96
00:07:10,540 --> 00:07:14,820
And I put this gif up there and I'm increasingly surprised how few people know what it's from.

97
00:07:14,820 --> 00:07:21,900
If you don't recognize this gif, congratulations on your high school graduation, I guess.

98
00:07:23,240 --> 00:07:32,440
Okay, so people will often say, but I have a presumption of innocence, but my Constitution, I've got rights.

99
00:07:32,440 --> 00:07:35,580
And you're right, you do have rights, at least for the time being.

100
00:07:36,340 --> 00:07:41,060
But the presumption of innocence is not one of the rights that's guaranteed in the Constitution.

101
00:07:41,060 --> 00:07:42,520
You can read it, it's not that long.

102
00:07:42,580 --> 00:07:44,540
You should read it, it's worth the read.

103
00:07:44,680 --> 00:07:49,540
And one of the things you'll notice, there's no presumption of innocence mentioned in the Constitution.

104
00:07:49,540 --> 00:07:54,060
It flows indirectly from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.

105
00:07:54,060 --> 00:07:54,620
Coffin v.

106
00:07:54,620 --> 00:07:57,780
United States is one of the first cases you study in law school.

107
00:07:57,900 --> 00:08:07,960
And that shows how, even though it's not actually in the text, it was discovered as a necessary implication of the rights guaranteed explicitly in the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.

108
00:08:07,960 --> 00:08:17,820
More importantly, though, this formulation of burglary law just won't be challenged in court because it's too much of an edge case to ever make it to trial.

109
00:08:17,820 --> 00:08:19,360
There's two things DAs hate.

110
00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:22,380
They hate crime and they hate losing cases.

111
00:08:22,700 --> 00:08:39,420
And because this formulation, even if it is arguably unconstitutional or might be, it'll never get tested because if it's such an edge case that you might be able to make a constitutional argument, the DA will shrug his hands and throw it out.

112
00:08:39,420 --> 00:08:40,640
He doesn't want to go down that route.

113
00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:42,020
That's not what his job is.

114
00:08:42,020 --> 00:08:43,660
He's got much bigger fish to fry.

115
00:08:43,660 --> 00:08:56,080
So, these kinds of problems where the law is a little unclear and common sense doesn't seem to quite match up with the way the law is written, that's why humans are in the loop.

116
00:08:56,080 --> 00:09:09,300
There's district attorneys with prosecutorial discretion, there's judges sitting over each trial, they're specifically there to handle exceptions where the law as written doesn't quite match up with the facts on the ground.

117
00:09:09,560 --> 00:09:21,480
So, even if you might be able to have a constitutional problem with this formulation, know that it will probably never come to trial because no one's going to care enough about a fact pattern like that to actually push it.

118
00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:33,700
Now, there's kind of a sense of boo-hit about these states that have possession implies intent formulation.

119
00:09:35,700 --> 00:09:41,900
And a lot of people think, oh, they're just wrong or they're nonsensical or they're anti-hacker, anti-lockpicker.

120
00:09:42,000 --> 00:09:48,400
But, if you look at actually what they're thinking is, it begins to make a little bit more sense and you have more sympathy for them.

121
00:09:48,400 --> 00:09:51,260
So, I decided let's look at some of them.

122
00:09:51,720 --> 00:09:53,980
First of all, I didn't know what the Nevada flag looked like.

123
00:09:53,980 --> 00:09:56,880
I had to look that up just for this presentation.

124
00:09:57,460 --> 00:09:59,500
Here's what Nevada decided.

125
00:10:01,260 --> 00:10:19,100
They said in a case, 1965, they said it is consistent with all the constitutional protections of accused men to throw on them the burden of proving facts particularly within their knowledge and hidden from discovery by the government.

126
00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:26,020
This is an illustrative example of the kind of reasoning that motivates possession implies intent state.

127
00:10:26,400 --> 00:10:29,700
You don't have to agree with it, but you can see what their thinking is.

128
00:10:29,700 --> 00:10:41,080
If we're having trial and the goal of the trial is to find out what the truth is and whether someone is guilty and that person has information they say is relevant to the case, they should be able to provide it.

129
00:10:41,080 --> 00:10:44,960
If they have it, then the least they can do is show it to the court.

130
00:10:45,460 --> 00:10:46,640
It kind of makes sense.

131
00:10:46,640 --> 00:10:47,980
It's very simple.

132
00:10:48,360 --> 00:10:53,980
Maybe it makes some of our civil liberties impulses a little squeamish, but it's not unreasonable.

133
00:10:54,940 --> 00:11:04,760
Especially when you consider the one we collectively like a little bit better which is the possession plus intent formulation the more liberal version.

134
00:11:05,780 --> 00:11:08,560
So why shouldn't we imply intent?

135
00:11:08,560 --> 00:11:18,360
And here's an example from the District of Columbia that shows the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the idea that possession plus intent should be the proper formulation.

136
00:11:18,680 --> 00:11:39,600
And what they say is and this is great close parsing by the judge although the sledgehammer, axe and hacksaw which the appellant had quite clearly can be used criminally they also may and for the most part are used for legitimate purposes.

137
00:11:39,600 --> 00:11:50,220
Since the mere fact of possession of such implements has no relevance to guilt, it may not be made the occasion of casting on the defendant the obligation of exculpation.

138
00:11:50,220 --> 00:12:06,260
In other words, unless what you're carrying are literally drugs or something else that's similarly illegal just for existing then the cops have to introduce additional facts to overcome the statistical likelihood that you intend to use them for a legal purpose.

139
00:12:06,700 --> 00:12:12,620
Most people carrying axes, sledgehammers hacks, hammers, etc.

140
00:12:12,620 --> 00:12:15,240
are using for legal purposes.

141
00:12:15,240 --> 00:12:20,560
So why in this case would we infer that they're using it for anything other than legal purpose?

142
00:12:20,560 --> 00:12:24,260
When you walk through it like that, it's kind of tortured logic.

143
00:12:24,260 --> 00:12:31,760
You have to suddenly appreciate the people who say, hey, you know what it's probably what it looks like unless you tell us otherwise.

144
00:12:31,760 --> 00:12:39,300
I have a lot, after doing the research for this, I have a lot more sympathy for the jurisdictions that decide to throw up their hands and say, you tell us.

145
00:12:39,920 --> 00:12:45,440
I know some of you in the back are saying, hey, aren't there different types of intent under the law?

146
00:12:45,520 --> 00:12:47,380
Yes, but that's not relevant here.

147
00:12:47,600 --> 00:12:50,320
Any intent will do for this particular formulation.

148
00:12:51,540 --> 00:13:03,220
Now, this kind of close parsing and close analysis of the way laws are written and what's the meaning behind them leads to some really funny outcomes, including my favorite lockpicking case.

149
00:13:03,220 --> 00:13:05,340
It turns out I have a favorite lockpicking case.

150
00:13:05,340 --> 00:13:08,120
We are once again back in the District of Columbia.

151
00:13:08,360 --> 00:13:08,940
This is a D.C.

152
00:13:08,940 --> 00:13:11,880
appeals court, still relatively recently, from 2014.

153
00:13:12,260 --> 00:13:13,320
In re J.W.

154
00:13:13,320 --> 00:13:14,580
means there was a minor involved.

155
00:13:14,580 --> 00:13:18,200
So some kid under 18 got nicked by the cops.

156
00:13:18,360 --> 00:13:19,820
Funny circumstances.

157
00:13:19,860 --> 00:13:20,820
Here's what happened.

158
00:13:21,460 --> 00:13:22,040
J.W.

159
00:13:22,040 --> 00:13:26,580
was arrested red-handed trying to steal a Vespa with a pair of bolt cutters.

160
00:13:26,780 --> 00:13:31,960
He was charged with possession of implements of a crime, which is the usual statute that applies to lockpicking.

161
00:13:32,060 --> 00:13:34,500
Both elements are satisfied, no question.

162
00:13:34,500 --> 00:13:41,360
He's sitting there, middle of the night, by the Vespa , bolt cutters in hand, definition of caught red-handed .

163
00:13:41,420 --> 00:13:44,440
Absolutely possession, absolutely intent.

164
00:13:44,780 --> 00:13:54,960
However, there's an inartful drafting of the statute because the statute specified, doesn't usually specify, but in this case it does, it specified tools for picking locks.

165
00:13:55,740 --> 00:14:07,340
A meticulous appeals court judge observed that picking a lock is generally understood to require skill rather than brute force and to turn the lock without damage to the lock.

166
00:14:07,340 --> 00:14:14,500
He literally went and looked up the definition of picking a lock in the dictionary and came back with that and entered it in the record.

167
00:14:14,720 --> 00:14:29,840
As a result of reading the statute across from the definitions, it was, the judge concluded, not physically possible to pick a lock with bolt cutters, nor is it legally possible to convict J.W.

168
00:14:29,840 --> 00:14:39,160
under the statute as written, because try as you might, those big old bolt cutters will not fit into the lock and turn it in a non-damaging fashion.

169
00:14:40,080 --> 00:14:47,420
Conclusion, no possession of tools designed for picking locks and J.W.

170
00:14:47,420 --> 00:14:52,640
goes free and anyone who complains about that gets to go back and write the statute a little bit more carefully.

171
00:14:53,360 --> 00:15:03,480
I think that is a great example of a judge carefully parsing the statute, holding the state to what they said they wanted, and then telling them if you want something different, you have to be a little bit more careful.

172
00:15:03,480 --> 00:15:18,360
Another thing I like about this is this means that we have it on record that all those savages and reprobates at conferences who destroy the locks and tie the lock picks into pretzels are not legally speaking, picking locks.

173
00:15:20,500 --> 00:15:24,700
So, here's the part that I think a lot of people show up for.

174
00:15:24,740 --> 00:15:35,280
The A number one absolute main area of shouting and nonsense regarding locks and lock picking is speculation on breaking the link between possession and intent.

175
00:15:35,340 --> 00:15:36,860
So, let's talk about it.

176
00:15:36,860 --> 00:15:41,220
This is in those states where possession implies intent.

177
00:15:41,220 --> 00:15:43,340
Those minority of states.

178
00:15:44,080 --> 00:15:46,000
Well, what can we do to protect ourselves?

179
00:15:46,020 --> 00:15:53,160
There's a thought that these are the places where lock picks are illegal and we have to be on our guard and we have to have an answer ready.

180
00:15:53,440 --> 00:15:55,080
So, what do we do about it?

181
00:15:55,080 --> 00:15:58,780
And something that often comes up is have a card.

182
00:15:58,780 --> 00:16:03,200
Have some kind of self-made card or a more professional card.

183
00:16:03,280 --> 00:16:03,680
Poof.

184
00:16:03,680 --> 00:16:04,360
Problem solved.

185
00:16:04,360 --> 00:16:08,840
This is that fantasy of holding it up to the officer and saying, don't worry, officer.

186
00:16:08,840 --> 00:16:10,360
I have a permit for this.

187
00:16:11,780 --> 00:16:14,140
That couldn't be further from the truth.

188
00:16:14,140 --> 00:16:22,480
There is no such thing as a get -out-of-jail-free card because they're absolutely allowed to have that conversation with you .

189
00:16:22,480 --> 00:16:28,060
And by the time you're having that conversation, it is not in your interest to try to avoid that conversation.

190
00:16:28,860 --> 00:16:47,200
Instead, I want you to think of if you're having a conversation about lock picks with a cop, you now is in your interest to engage in and expand in and own that conversation rather than trying to flash some kind of card and avoid it.

191
00:16:47,200 --> 00:16:57,460
The tool membership card, which is forthcoming, contains a few carefully crafted paragraphs to help you achieve a productive tone in that conversation.

192
00:16:57,740 --> 00:17:00,700
Essentially, as it acts as a conversation starter.

193
00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:07,080
It's a way to help you have the conversation effectively rather than avoid the conversation.

194
00:17:08,580 --> 00:17:23,020
It explains that tool is an organization that exists, that recreational locksport is a thing that exists, that the holder of the card is a member of tool, and it gives a gloss on the general state of overall laws.

195
00:17:23,340 --> 00:17:24,760
It doesn't overplay its hand.

196
00:17:25,180 --> 00:17:38,680
It basically digs down to the idea that what we teach and what we do at tool is legal everywhere in the United States by definition because locksporters and researchers have a legitimate use for their picks.

197
00:17:38,680 --> 00:17:42,500
And they follow the two rules, the two rules which are quite famously in tool.

198
00:17:42,740 --> 00:17:44,720
Don't pick a lock that you don't own.

199
00:17:44,720 --> 00:17:46,200
Don't pick a lock upon which you rely.

200
00:17:46,200 --> 00:17:52,440
If you're following those rules, then you don't fall afoul of either formulation of the state law, no matter where you are.

201
00:17:53,200 --> 00:17:57,420
So that helps set the right tone.

202
00:17:57,440 --> 00:18:02,100
If you're a conscientious locksport practitioner, you know, don't hide them.

203
00:18:02,100 --> 00:18:03,920
Don't lie about why you have them.

204
00:18:03,920 --> 00:18:06,320
Essentially, don't act guilty if you aren't guilty.

205
00:18:06,720 --> 00:18:13,680
People sometimes come to me and say, Preston, that's all well and good, but what if I'm doing this or that or the other thing?

206
00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:15,280
What about this circumstance?

207
00:18:15,580 --> 00:18:26,140
And what I always tell them is if what you're doing is a crime, then you are literally doing what the crime of possession of burglary tools says, and you have no basis to complain.

208
00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:44,180
If, on the other hand, you are not and you're practicing good locksport ethics and you're following tools' rules, then you can be safe in knowing that what you are doing is legal in every state in the union and you have a card to help explain that concept to anyone who's asking.

209
00:18:45,060 --> 00:18:50,760
Now, we are very serious about keeping our members and our friends on the right side of the law.

210
00:18:50,840 --> 00:18:54,160
Nonetheless, and I want to emphasize, this is not legal advice.

211
00:18:54,160 --> 00:18:57,680
This is just wisdom that any person in the society should know.

212
00:18:57,940 --> 00:18:59,740
Let me give you a rule of thumb.

213
00:18:59,740 --> 00:19:02,100
Call it the one crime at a time rule.

214
00:19:02,100 --> 00:19:06,240
If you choose to break the law, don't break the law while you're breaking the law.

215
00:19:06,240 --> 00:19:13,640
Don't accidentally turn a legitimate hobby into an indictable offense by carrying lockpicks along on a time when you shouldn't have them.

216
00:19:14,180 --> 00:19:18,580
In the words of legal philosopher William Smith in the matter of Earth vs.

217
00:19:18,580 --> 00:19:24,200
Giant Bug, 1997, don't start nothing won't be nothing.

218
00:19:24,240 --> 00:19:29,060
I have heard from many police officers in many different jurisdictions.

219
00:19:29,060 --> 00:19:30,180
I've asked them.

220
00:19:30,180 --> 00:19:39,320
I have been on public transit sitting there picking on my practice locks and I said, hey guys, I'm sitting here picking locks.

221
00:19:39,780 --> 00:19:41,580
I'm pretty sure that's acceptable.

222
00:19:41,580 --> 00:19:42,540
Do you have any problem with it?

223
00:19:42,540 --> 00:19:45,420
And they say, planning on picking locks on the train?

224
00:19:45,420 --> 00:19:47,480
Are you planning on picking locks on the airplane?

225
00:19:47,600 --> 00:19:48,880
They don't care.

226
00:19:48,900 --> 00:19:50,820
They have actual crimes to worry about.

227
00:19:50,820 --> 00:19:56,940
If you're sitting there as a law -abiding citizen doing something that's not bothering anybody, it's not worth their time.

228
00:19:57,740 --> 00:20:09,540
So don't be nervous about it and don't worry about ignorance of the law becoming a problem for you because you're willing to have that conversation.

229
00:20:10,280 --> 00:20:17,880
Another area that people oftentimes ask about is federal law, particularly TSA.

230
00:20:18,860 --> 00:20:27,060
DEFCON is one of the most common sources of that question because people say, well, I just bought lockpicks but now I can't take them on an airplane.

231
00:20:30,620 --> 00:20:33,400
Well, it's not a factor.

232
00:20:33,400 --> 00:20:36,100
It is literally not

233
00:20:39,620 --> 00:20:44,820
a factor because TSA has a set of things that they're looking for and a set of things that are not on their list.

234
00:20:45,320 --> 00:20:51,480
Because a lockpicking tool is a non-sharp tool less than 7 inches, it's carry-on approved.

235
00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:55,660
It's simply not disallowed, which means it's allowed.

236
00:20:56,140 --> 00:21:06,220
And don't say this to TSA if you're having that conversation but the locks on the cockpit doors are not even pin tumbler locks so all the more reason for it not to be on their list.

237
00:21:07,320 --> 00:21:25,680
After years and years of asking them, we've got a Twitter conversation from a bunch of different people here they finally, their agents finally added lockpicks explicitly to their can I bring my self-service site on the website.

238
00:21:27,160 --> 00:21:36,700
So if this is a concern for you and you'd like a little extra backup then feel free, go on the website, take a screenshot print it out, throw it in your lockpick kit.

239
00:21:37,140 --> 00:21:47,360
I've done it, I know a lot of friends of mine in tool have done it we carried around our lockpick kit for years and years until it got ratty and torn up, then we threw it away and we never used it.

240
00:21:47,460 --> 00:21:51,260
Once again, because TSA agents just don't care.

241
00:21:51,260 --> 00:21:56,340
But remember like anything that you want to carry on a plane the TSA agent gets the last call.

242
00:21:56,340 --> 00:22:08,960
So be polite be friendly, be patient with them whether you're doing an opt-out or bringing something unusual through carry-on, just make sure you have enough time to have the discussion without being rushed or being flustered.

243
00:22:09,060 --> 00:22:14,300
Yes, I like opting out, there's good ethical reasons to it even though sometimes it's a pain in the butt.

244
00:22:14,300 --> 00:22:32,740
If I'm in a hurry, I don't want to miss my flight, yeah, I'll go through the scanner carrying lockpicks is likewise if I'm really in a hurry, I'll just check them but for the most part, I like carrying them on A, because I know where they are because they're valuable and make sure they don't get broken but also to make sure that I'm practicing what I preach and telling people yes,

245
00:22:32,740 --> 00:22:40,300
it's not a problem and on the rare occasion I have those conversations then I can make it that much easier for the next person coming behind me that's bringing lockpicks.

246
00:22:41,020 --> 00:22:55,920
One of the best pieces of advice I get when I got in law school when you're having conversations like this is always try to seem like the most reasonable person in the room seem like the most reasonable person in the room if you seem like you're prepared for the conversation,

247
00:22:55,920 --> 00:23:09,680
if it's not a surprise for you, then that really helps them be that much more calm about it As a last resort many airports will give you the option to mail something home rather than trashing it.

248
00:23:09,680 --> 00:23:13,080
Another great option if you've got time to take advantage of it.

249
00:23:14,160 --> 00:23:18,580
Here's what I do when I'm taking my lockpicks through an airport.

250
00:23:18,660 --> 00:23:30,520
This is my bin on the inside of security at San Francisco note the gigantic bag of lockpicks including the fuzzy handcuffs right on top just in case anyone wants to get curious.

251
00:23:30,520 --> 00:23:48,120
That's all totally legal as are the Bogotas in my wallet which is there on the right no one ever notices that Ironically, the illegal thing in the picture is that little bottle of crack and rum I totally did not know that you're not allowed to bring little bottles through security or under the airplane.

252
00:23:48,120 --> 00:23:52,060
You're not allowed to provide your own booze So yes, there is something illegal going on in that picture.

253
00:23:52,060 --> 00:23:53,000
No, it's not the lockpicks.

254
00:23:53,000 --> 00:23:54,180
Yes, it is the booze.

255
00:23:54,260 --> 00:23:56,360
A note on having fun with TSA.

256
00:23:57,120 --> 00:24:03,500
I like putting the handcuffs on top because if they're going to open up the bag I like to put a smile on their face.

257
00:24:03,500 --> 00:24:07,200
It gives them the problem of do they dig around the handcuffs?

258
00:24:07,200 --> 00:24:09,100
Are they allowed to pick the handcuffs up?

259
00:24:09,100 --> 00:24:12,440
This is a dildo versus your dildo territory.

260
00:24:13,080 --> 00:24:17,880
So as long as they're going to have the conversation, there's no reason we can't make it a little bit fun.

261
00:24:18,060 --> 00:24:24,000
And before you ask yes, handcuffs are also legal are also permitted in carry-on.

262
00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:29,660
Lots of good reasons for that including security officers and police officers that always travel with handcuffs.

263
00:24:30,220 --> 00:24:36,460
A few years ago a lady Gaga brought her own fuzzy handcuffs and there was a bit of a hullabaloo about it.

264
00:24:36,460 --> 00:24:39,020
But they were of course allowed on.

265
00:24:39,420 --> 00:24:42,540
So fun lockpick tricks.

266
00:24:42,620 --> 00:24:45,380
Just carry fuzzy handcuffs as well.

267
00:24:45,600 --> 00:24:48,320
It helps set the conversation on the right mode.

268
00:24:48,540 --> 00:24:52,820
A comment that I got from Max who works with TOOL.

269
00:24:52,820 --> 00:24:59,320
He said always remember that you can help the conversation along by giving some framing.

270
00:24:59,320 --> 00:25:12,600
So if you see your bag of lockpicks go through the x-ray and the person's eyes kind of light up and they shunt it off to the side for further inspection, wave at the guy as you're walking over.

271
00:25:12,600 --> 00:25:14,140
So that's the conversation just right.

272
00:25:14,140 --> 00:25:17,160
I see you've got my bag of lockpicking equipment there.

273
00:25:17,580 --> 00:25:19,200
I do this, that, or the other thing.

274
00:25:19,200 --> 00:25:21,120
I do locksport as a hobby.

275
00:25:21,120 --> 00:25:23,360
Inside you will find the following things.

276
00:25:23,520 --> 00:25:33,960
You can help them get in the right frame and there's kind of an art to helping them arrive at their own conclusions rather than dictating to them in a way that might make them suspicious.

277
00:25:34,420 --> 00:25:36,260
Don't avoid the conversation.

278
00:25:36,340 --> 00:25:38,420
Welcome the chance to practice the conversation.

279
00:25:38,540 --> 00:25:43,920
It's almost always no big deal because again, it's a non-sharp tool less than 7 inches.

280
00:25:45,200 --> 00:25:55,320
We will pass handcuffs and we will go to the rest of the world and people often ask me now that I've talked about the United States, what about the rest of the world?

281
00:25:55,320 --> 00:26:01,240
And the answer is the rest of the world does not differ materially from the United States for the most part.

282
00:26:01,400 --> 00:26:07,480
Everywhere around the world you'll find countries and individual jurisdictions with both formulations.

283
00:26:07,480 --> 00:26:13,400
The most common formulation is possession plus intent but there are some places that have possession implies intent.

284
00:26:13,480 --> 00:26:18,620
So Commonwealth, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, they're all legal.

285
00:26:18,640 --> 00:26:21,180
Some of them are possession plus intent.

286
00:26:21,180 --> 00:26:25,700
Some of them are possession implies intent but none of them make it strictly illegal.

287
00:26:25,700 --> 00:26:32,380
Netherlands, as we know, Tool having started in the Netherlands perfectly legal and there's quite a robust culture there.

288
00:26:32,440 --> 00:26:34,440
Israel, a little bit more tightened down.

289
00:26:34,440 --> 00:26:45,300
They're definitely in the possession implies intent camp and I'm given to understand that in China they are fairly illegal but like many things in China it depends on who your patron is.

290
00:26:45,300 --> 00:26:49,520
So yes, when Tool goes to China we do take lockpicks with us.

291
00:26:49,520 --> 00:26:55,240
We teach lockpicking there and we get it all cleared through the proper authorities and we haven't had a problem yet.

292
00:26:55,820 --> 00:27:04,360
Now there's one last thing that needs to be said before I round this out which is 2020 is in some ways different than other years.

293
00:27:04,360 --> 00:27:06,920
In some ways no different than it ever was.

294
00:27:06,920 --> 00:27:09,020
We're just learning more about it now.

295
00:27:09,020 --> 00:27:32,560
The Black Lives Matter movement has really drawn a lot more attention to the interaction between young black people, people of color, and law enforcement and it wouldn't be right to finish this talk without mentioning that all the advice I gave works great if you are a white reasonably well-educated male lawyer .

296
00:27:32,560 --> 00:27:35,800
Does it work as well if you're not some of those things?

297
00:27:35,800 --> 00:27:42,160
And the only answer I can tell you is all the principles remain the same but it is absolutely hard mode.

298
00:27:42,380 --> 00:28:06,560
It's no surprise that you might have to speak better, understand better, make yourself heard better to get the same results and there's nothing that I can say to make that okay in this talk or to really give a lot of insight from a perspective other than mine but I do want to acknowledge that the law is the same and many of the same principles apply but it's hard mode.

299
00:28:07,000 --> 00:28:09,180
So that is the laws of lockpicking.

300
00:28:09,180 --> 00:28:12,340
I understand as we end this I'll have a chance to take questions.

301
00:28:12,340 --> 00:28:21,720
So for anyone who has questions about lockpicking in the U.S., around the world, who has stories they want to tell, who has hypotheticals that they want to get insight on, I would be happy to share them.

302
00:28:21,720 --> 00:28:24,380
Mostly thank you for showing up for this conversation.

303
00:28:24,560 --> 00:28:25,540
Happy lockpicking.

304
00:28:25,540 --> 00:28:26,720
Look forward to seeing you around.