[00:00.920 --> 00:05.360] Welcome, welcome everybody to a very unusual DEF CON. [00:05.360 --> 00:08.620] Lots of things are different, lots of things are staying the same, [00:08.620 --> 00:13.740] including, as always, the open organization of Lockpickers, Lockpick Village. [00:13.740 --> 00:15.460] We're so glad you're here. [00:15.500 --> 00:20.740] We hope that you can learn some things, have some fun, walk out more fired up [00:20.740 --> 00:23.480] about hacking and lockpicking than you arrived. [00:23.580 --> 00:28.300] My particular part of this today is law school for lockpickers. [00:28.300 --> 00:30.060] What even is that? [00:30.140 --> 00:34.760] Well, by way of background, I'm Preston Thomas, a former board member of TOOL. [00:34.760 --> 00:38.460] I'm a licensed attorney barred in the District of Columbia and in California, [00:38.460 --> 00:42.480] which is, importantly, different than barred from D.C. and California. [00:42.580 --> 00:45.200] I've done this talk before, including at DEF CON, [00:45.200 --> 00:48.520] but 2020 has brought this topic into a new light. [00:48.520 --> 00:52.420] Security research of all kinds, from hacking, reverse engineering, [00:52.420 --> 00:55.800] social engineering, lockpicking, these all rely on civil liberties [00:55.800 --> 00:58.240] of an open society with rule of law. [00:58.240 --> 01:01.740] Hacking is, by nature, subversive. Lockpicking is no different. [01:01.740 --> 01:06.160] So, like journalists and priests and security researchers, [01:06.160 --> 01:10.060] our job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. [01:10.440 --> 01:12.680] We can do things many people don't understand. [01:12.680 --> 01:15.660] For certain types of people, encountering something they don't understand [01:15.660 --> 01:20.080] makes them nervous, irrational, maybe even angry. [01:20.680 --> 01:23.360] I should note, I've worked with TOOL for almost ten years [01:23.360 --> 01:27.180] and been a lawyer for longer, and when people get nervous, [01:27.180 --> 01:29.860] irrational, or angry about lockpicking topics, [01:29.860 --> 01:32.940] it often ends up on my plate. Falls to me to explain. [01:32.960 --> 01:36.700] I've had this particular conversation hundreds of times. [01:36.700 --> 01:41.080] So, this talk today, it isn't for you. It's for me. [01:41.080 --> 01:45.040] I want to recruit all of you into my crusade to push back [01:45.040 --> 01:50.440] on the tide of bullshit about laws and lockpicking and how the two interact. [01:50.440 --> 01:54.220] I'm tired. I want to be done talking about this, [01:54.220 --> 01:58.120] but people won't let me. Help me. Please. [01:58.540 --> 01:59.880] Let's do this. [02:01.400 --> 02:04.260] To begin with, I am a lawyer. [02:04.260 --> 02:06.640] I am not, however, your lawyer. [02:07.200 --> 02:11.380] This is so, so not legal advice. The only advice I'm going to give you today is [02:11.380 --> 02:14.060] don't get your legal advice from a guy at a con. [02:14.060 --> 02:18.720] Also, my opinions are my own. They don't represent TOOL or anyone I work for. [02:18.720 --> 02:22.420] Standard disclaimer. Law & Order was a great show because [02:22.420 --> 02:26.840] half was the cops and half was the lawyers. For the law part, [02:26.840 --> 02:30.940] you can just Google what the laws are in a specific jurisdiction or how to talk [02:30.940 --> 02:34.060] to a law enforcement officer. There's great stuff on YouTube about that. [02:34.060 --> 02:38.060] This is not that talk. This talk is more the second part, [02:38.060 --> 02:42.760] the order part, about why lockpicking laws are the way they are. [02:42.880 --> 02:46.700] And what it means for you as a practitioner dealing with [02:46.700 --> 02:51.140] lots of non-practitioners. Everyone has legal theories [02:51.140 --> 02:54.240] about lots of parts of daily life, not just lockpicking. [02:54.240 --> 02:57.920] Most of them are workable. Some of them are nonsensical. [02:57.920 --> 03:01.760] Some of them are absolutely bananas. And where do loopy legal theories [03:01.760 --> 03:05.660] tend to come from? Armchair lawyers. [03:05.680 --> 03:09.680] Armchair lawyers everywhere with their good old University of Wikipedia [03:09.680 --> 03:14.080] law degree. And their specialty area is something I like to call [03:14.080 --> 03:18.420] folk law. These are guys' ideas about law that everyone seems to know, [03:18.420 --> 03:21.380] but no one really seems to know where they came from. This is, [03:21.380 --> 03:24.920] I want my one phone call, or if you ask someone if they're a cop, [03:24.920 --> 03:27.780] they have to tell you, or I don't have to pay income taxes [03:27.780 --> 03:30.500] because I live in the free state of Jefferson. [03:31.820 --> 03:35.480] Because of folk law and all the people opining about it [03:35.480 --> 03:38.920] and spouting off about it, Googling about lockpicking laws on the Internet [03:38.920 --> 03:41.900] is worse than Googling about that weird rash. [03:41.900 --> 03:45.580] So let's get real. Today, let's do this [03:45.580 --> 03:49.860] law school style. We're going to be concrete, specific, [03:49.860 --> 03:52.320] and clear in how we use words. [03:53.380 --> 03:55.880] Let's start off this law school for lockpickers [03:55.880 --> 03:59.720] by building a law. Let's build a criminal statute called [03:59.720 --> 04:03.420] the Possession of Burglary Tools, because that's almost always what we're talking about [04:03.420 --> 04:05.780] when we're talking about the legality of lockpicks. [04:05.900 --> 04:10.060] Criminal laws are constructed of elements. These elements are what need to be proven [04:10.060 --> 04:14.640] beyond a reasonable doubt before someone can be legally found guilty of a crime. [04:14.640 --> 04:18.320] In the case of a burglary tool statute, there's usually two elements. [04:18.540 --> 04:22.520] Possession is physically having a tool or device, including lockpicks, [04:22.520 --> 04:26.240] and intent means criminal mindset, i.e., you intend [04:26.240 --> 04:29.460] to do something that is against the law. You can call this formula [04:29.460 --> 04:32.200] Possession plus Intent. [04:32.840 --> 04:36.620] Now, intent is difficult to get at. It's in your head. [04:37.040 --> 04:39.240] It's not something the court has access to. [04:39.240 --> 04:42.840] So, typically in a court of law, it's shown through circumstances. [04:42.840 --> 04:46.920] In other words, part of the district attorney's job is to show circumstances [04:46.920 --> 04:50.640] that make it beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had crime in mind [04:50.640 --> 04:53.000] at the time they possessed lockpicks. [04:53.000 --> 04:57.160] No circumstances, no intent, no intent, no crime. [04:57.380 --> 05:00.220] In most states, it's as simple as that. [05:00.220 --> 05:04.320] Mere possession of lockpicks without any circumstances indicating unlawful intent, [05:04.880 --> 05:06.260] not a crime. [05:07.800 --> 05:11.580] You look across, you can see that is the vast majority of states. [05:11.580 --> 05:15.100] We colored them green just because it's nice, it's soothing, [05:15.100 --> 05:17.040] it sends the right message across. [05:17.320 --> 05:20.900] But what about those shadowy places you say in your best [05:20.900 --> 05:24.420] Jonathan Taylor Thomas 1994 Simba voice? [05:25.320 --> 05:28.760] Remember how I said intent was really hard to get at? [05:28.760 --> 05:30.860] The court can't know it's in someone's mind. [05:30.860 --> 05:34.540] So, who better to provide evidence about the state of someone's mind [05:34.540 --> 05:36.680] than the person themselves? [05:36.760 --> 05:40.740] That is the thinking behind that minority of states that just throw up their hands [05:40.740 --> 05:43.540] and say, you tell me. [05:43.840 --> 05:47.980] I'm looking at you, Virginia, Ohio, Mississippi, Nevada. [05:48.160 --> 05:49.660] Laws change over time, [05:49.660 --> 05:52.940] but they pretty much solidify down to these four [05:52.940 --> 05:56.260] as having the possession plus intent formulation. [05:56.800 --> 05:58.600] So, these states, they write their burglary tools [05:58.600 --> 06:02.220] so that possession of lockpicks is prima facie [06:02.220 --> 06:04.500] evidence of intent to commit a crime. [06:04.500 --> 06:06.380] We'll talk about prima facie here in a second. [06:06.620 --> 06:08.740] Here's an example from the Code of Virginia. [06:09.240 --> 06:11.360] For those of you who like to follow along, [06:11.360 --> 06:14.060] this is Criminal Code 18.2-94. [06:14.140 --> 06:18.160] The possession of such burglary as tools, implements, or outfit by any person [06:18.160 --> 06:21.380] other than a licensed dealer shall be prima facie evidence [06:21.380 --> 06:24.940] of an intent to commit burglary, robbery, or larceny. [06:26.280 --> 06:29.080] So, let's talk about that prima facie word. [06:29.080 --> 06:33.080] It's not law school without some Latin. Let's dive into it. [06:33.080 --> 06:35.320] Prima facie, Latin, literally means [06:35.320 --> 06:39.080] on first face, or on first impression, you can figure. [06:39.880 --> 06:41.980] In plain English, that means [06:41.980 --> 06:44.580] if I didn't know better, [06:44.580 --> 06:46.840] I'd say something. [06:46.840 --> 06:49.120] I'd say you're up to no good. [06:49.680 --> 06:52.080] Turning that back into legal language, [06:52.080 --> 06:55.380] that's referred to as a rebuttable presumption. It's a presumption [06:55.380 --> 06:58.600] because it starts off set to true. Default value, true. [06:58.600 --> 07:02.080] It's rebuttable because that default value can be changed. [07:02.400 --> 07:04.440] Which means the ball [07:04.440 --> 07:08.020] is in your court. Or, in more colloquial terms, [07:08.020 --> 07:10.540] prima facie means splainer. [07:10.540 --> 07:13.380] And I put this gif up there and I'm increasingly surprised [07:13.380 --> 07:16.550] how few people know what it's from. If you don't recognize this gif, [07:17.820 --> 07:19.360] congratulations on your [07:19.360 --> 07:21.900] high school graduation, I guess. [07:23.240 --> 07:26.860] Okay, so people will often say, [07:26.860 --> 07:29.680] but I have a presumption of innocence, [07:29.680 --> 07:32.440] but my Constitution, I've got rights. [07:32.440 --> 07:35.580] And you're right, you do have rights, at least for the time being. [07:36.340 --> 07:38.020] But the presumption of innocence [07:38.020 --> 07:41.060] is not one of the rights that's guaranteed in the Constitution. [07:41.060 --> 07:44.540] You can read it, it's not that long. You should read it, it's worth the read. [07:44.680 --> 07:46.960] And one of the things you'll notice, there's no [07:46.960 --> 07:49.540] presumption of innocence mentioned in the Constitution. [07:49.540 --> 07:54.060] It flows indirectly from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. [07:54.060 --> 07:56.700] Coffin v. United States is one of the first cases you study [07:56.700 --> 07:59.540] in law school. And that shows how, even though [07:59.540 --> 08:02.340] it's not actually in the text, it was discovered [08:02.340 --> 08:05.600] as a necessary implication of the rights guaranteed [08:05.600 --> 08:07.960] explicitly in the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. [08:07.960 --> 08:11.920] More importantly, though, this formulation of burglary law [08:11.920 --> 08:14.340] just won't be challenged in court because [08:14.340 --> 08:17.820] it's too much of an edge case to ever make it to trial. [08:17.820 --> 08:20.940] There's two things DAs hate. They hate crime and they [08:20.940 --> 08:23.600] hate losing cases. And because [08:24.740 --> 08:27.900] this formulation, even if it [08:27.900 --> 08:30.380] is arguably unconstitutional or might be, [08:30.380 --> 08:33.180] it'll never get tested because if it's such [08:33.180 --> 08:36.880] an edge case that you might be able to make a constitutional argument, [08:36.880 --> 08:39.420] the DA will shrug his hands and throw it out. [08:39.420 --> 08:42.020] He doesn't want to go down that route. That's not what his job is. [08:42.020 --> 08:43.660] He's got much bigger fish to fry. [08:43.660 --> 08:46.940] So, these kinds of problems [08:47.500 --> 08:49.720] where the law is a little [08:49.720 --> 08:52.740] unclear and common sense doesn't seem to quite [08:52.740 --> 08:56.080] match up with the way the law is written, that's why humans are in the loop. [08:56.080 --> 08:59.020] There's district attorneys with prosecutorial discretion, [08:59.020 --> 09:02.000] there's judges sitting over each trial, [09:02.000 --> 09:04.140] they're specifically there to handle exceptions [09:04.660 --> 09:07.720] where the law as written doesn't quite match up [09:07.720 --> 09:10.520] with the facts on the ground. So, [09:10.520 --> 09:13.580] even if you might be able to have a constitutional problem with this [09:13.580 --> 09:16.820] formulation, know that it will probably never come to trial [09:16.820 --> 09:19.740] because no one's going to care enough about a fact pattern like that [09:19.740 --> 09:21.480] to actually push it. [09:23.000 --> 09:25.700] Now, there's kind of a sense [09:25.700 --> 09:28.480] of boo-hit about [09:28.480 --> 09:31.320] these states that have possession [09:31.320 --> 09:33.700] implies intent formulation. [09:35.700 --> 09:37.460] And a lot of people think, oh, they're [09:37.460 --> 09:40.540] just wrong or they're nonsensical or they're anti-hacker, [09:40.540 --> 09:43.800] anti-lockpicker. But, if you look at actually [09:43.800 --> 09:46.940] what they're thinking is, it begins to make a little bit more sense [09:46.940 --> 09:49.460] and you have more sympathy for them. So, I decided [09:49.460 --> 09:52.360] let's look at some of them. First of all, [09:52.360 --> 09:55.340] I didn't know what the Nevada flag looked like. I had to look that up [09:55.340 --> 09:58.440] just for this presentation. Here's what Nevada [09:58.440 --> 09:59.500] decided. [10:01.260 --> 10:04.640] They said in a case, 1965, [10:05.720 --> 10:08.120] they said it is consistent [10:08.120 --> 10:11.140] with all the constitutional protections of accused men [10:11.140 --> 10:14.320] to throw on them the burden of proving facts [10:14.320 --> 10:17.320] particularly within their knowledge and hidden [10:17.320 --> 10:19.100] from discovery by the government. [10:19.440 --> 10:22.600] This is an illustrative example of the kind of reasoning [10:22.600 --> 10:26.020] that motivates possession implies intent state. [10:26.400 --> 10:29.700] You don't have to agree with it, but you can see what their thinking is. [10:29.700 --> 10:32.000] If we're having trial [10:32.000 --> 10:34.720] and the goal of the trial is to find out what the truth is [10:34.720 --> 10:37.760] and whether someone is guilty and that person has information [10:37.760 --> 10:41.080] they say is relevant to the case, they should be able to provide it. [10:41.080 --> 10:44.960] If they have it, then the least they can do is show it to the court. [10:45.460 --> 10:46.640] It kind of makes sense. [10:46.640 --> 10:49.720] It's very simple. Maybe it makes some of our [10:49.720 --> 10:52.200] civil liberties impulses a little squeamish, [10:52.200 --> 10:56.220] but it's not unreasonable. Especially when you consider [10:56.220 --> 10:58.760] the one we collectively like a little bit better [10:58.760 --> 11:02.020] which is the possession plus intent formulation [11:02.020 --> 11:04.760] the more liberal version. [11:05.780 --> 11:08.560] So why shouldn't we imply intent? [11:08.560 --> 11:10.740] And here's an example from the District [11:10.740 --> 11:13.540] of Columbia that shows the kind of reasoning involved [11:13.540 --> 11:16.840] in arriving at the idea that possession plus intent should be [11:16.840 --> 11:19.780] the proper formulation. And what they say is [11:19.780 --> 11:21.780] and this is great [11:23.440 --> 11:25.640] close parsing by the judge [11:27.460 --> 11:31.040] although the sledgehammer, axe and hacksaw [11:31.040 --> 11:34.040] which the appellant had quite clearly can be used criminally [11:34.040 --> 11:37.200] they also may and for the most part are [11:37.200 --> 11:39.600] used for legitimate purposes. [11:39.600 --> 11:42.100] Since the mere fact of possession of such implements [11:42.100 --> 11:45.580] has no relevance to guilt, it may not be made [11:45.580 --> 11:48.640] the occasion of casting on the defendant the obligation [11:48.640 --> 11:51.520] of exculpation. In other words, [11:51.520 --> 11:54.880] unless what you're carrying are literally drugs or something else [11:54.880 --> 11:57.120] that's similarly illegal just for existing [11:57.120 --> 12:00.560] then the cops have to introduce additional facts to overcome [12:00.560 --> 12:04.040] the statistical likelihood that you intend to use them [12:04.040 --> 12:06.260] for a legal purpose. [12:06.700 --> 12:10.220] Most people carrying axes, sledgehammers [12:10.220 --> 12:12.620] hacks, hammers, etc. [12:12.620 --> 12:15.780] are using for legal purposes. So why [12:15.780 --> 12:18.800] in this case would we infer that they're using it for [12:18.800 --> 12:21.920] anything other than legal purpose? When you walk through it [12:21.920 --> 12:24.860] like that, it's kind of tortured logic. You have to [12:24.860 --> 12:28.100] suddenly appreciate the people who say, hey, you know what [12:28.660 --> 12:30.960] it's probably what it looks like unless you tell us [12:30.960 --> 12:33.840] otherwise. I have a lot, after doing the research for this, I have a lot [12:33.840 --> 12:36.860] more sympathy for the jurisdictions that decide to throw [12:36.860 --> 12:39.300] up their hands and say, you tell us. [12:39.920 --> 12:42.740] I know some of you in the back are saying, hey, aren't there [12:42.740 --> 12:45.920] different types of intent under the law? Yes, [12:45.920 --> 12:48.700] but that's not relevant here. Any intent will do [12:48.700 --> 12:50.320] for this particular formulation. [12:51.540 --> 12:54.880] Now, this kind of close parsing and close analysis [12:54.880 --> 12:57.900] of the way laws are written and what's the meaning behind [12:57.900 --> 13:00.660] them leads to some really funny [13:00.660 --> 13:03.640] outcomes, including my favorite lockpicking case. It turns out [13:03.640 --> 13:06.560] I have a favorite lockpicking case. We are once again back [13:06.560 --> 13:09.640] in the District of Columbia. This is a D.C. appeals court, still [13:09.640 --> 13:12.580] relatively recently, from 2014. In re [13:12.580 --> 13:15.560] J.W. means there was a minor involved. So some kid [13:15.560 --> 13:18.600] under 18 got nicked by the cops. Funny [13:18.600 --> 13:22.040] circumstances. Here's what happened. J.W. [13:22.040 --> 13:24.900] was arrested red-handed trying to steal a [13:24.900 --> 13:28.660] Vespa with a pair of bolt cutters. He was charged [13:28.660 --> 13:31.020] with possession of implements of a crime, which is the usual statute [13:31.020 --> 13:34.500] that applies to lockpicking. Both elements are satisfied, [13:34.500 --> 13:37.780] no question. He's sitting there, middle of the night, [13:37.780 --> 13:40.880] by the Vespa, bolt cutters in hand, [13:40.880 --> 13:42.760] definition of caught red-handed. Absolutely possession, [13:42.760 --> 13:45.820] absolutely intent. However, [13:45.820 --> 13:48.580] there's an inartful drafting of the statute because the statute [13:48.580 --> 13:51.640] specified, doesn't usually specify, but in this case it does, [13:51.640 --> 13:54.960] it specified tools for picking locks. [13:55.740 --> 13:57.520] A meticulous appeals court [13:57.520 --> 14:00.500] judge observed that picking a lock is [14:00.500 --> 14:03.920] generally understood to require skill rather than brute force [14:03.920 --> 14:06.740] and to turn the lock without damage [14:06.740 --> 14:09.320] to the lock. He literally went and looked up the definition of [14:09.320 --> 14:12.800] picking a lock in the dictionary and came back [14:12.800 --> 14:15.840] with that and entered it in the record. As a result [14:15.840 --> 14:18.840] of reading the statute across from the [14:18.840 --> 14:21.580] definitions, it was, the judge [14:21.580 --> 14:24.980] concluded, not physically possible to pick [14:25.360 --> 14:27.820] a lock with bolt cutters, nor is it legally [14:27.820 --> 14:31.020] possible to convict J.W. under the statute as [14:31.020 --> 14:33.920] written, because try as you might, [14:33.920 --> 14:36.780] those big old bolt cutters will not fit into the lock and [14:36.780 --> 14:39.160] turn it in a non-damaging fashion. [14:40.080 --> 14:42.180] Conclusion, no [14:42.880 --> 14:45.740] possession of tools designed for picking locks [14:46.260 --> 14:48.840] and J.W. goes free and anyone [14:48.840 --> 14:51.860] who complains about that gets to go back and write the statute a little bit more [14:51.860 --> 14:54.800] carefully. I think that is a great example [14:54.800 --> 14:58.080] of a judge carefully parsing the statute, holding the state [14:58.080 --> 15:00.880] to what they said they wanted, and then telling them if you want [15:00.880 --> 15:03.480] something different, you have to be a little bit more careful. [15:03.480 --> 15:06.580] Another thing I like about this is this means that we have it [15:06.580 --> 15:09.600] on record that all those savages and reprobates [15:09.600 --> 15:12.540] at conferences who destroy the locks [15:12.540 --> 15:15.280] and tie the lock picks into pretzels are not [15:15.280 --> 15:18.360] legally speaking, picking locks. [15:20.500 --> 15:21.260] So, [15:21.260 --> 15:24.700] here's the part that I think a lot of people show up for. [15:24.740 --> 15:27.560] The A number one absolute main area of [15:27.560 --> 15:30.480] shouting and nonsense regarding locks and lock picking [15:30.480 --> 15:33.220] is speculation on breaking the link between [15:33.220 --> 15:36.860] possession and intent. So, let's talk about it. [15:36.860 --> 15:39.860] This is in those states where possession [15:39.860 --> 15:43.340] implies intent. Those minority of states. [15:44.080 --> 15:46.000] Well, what can we do to protect ourselves? [15:46.020 --> 15:48.840] There's a thought that these are the places where lock [15:48.840 --> 15:51.440] picks are illegal and we have to be on our guard and we have to have [15:51.440 --> 15:54.700] an answer ready. So, what do we do [15:54.700 --> 15:57.500] about it? And something that often comes up is [15:57.500 --> 16:00.740] have a card. Have some kind of self-made [16:00.740 --> 16:03.680] card or a more professional card. Poof. [16:03.680 --> 16:06.860] Problem solved. This is that fantasy of holding it up [16:06.860 --> 16:10.360] to the officer and saying, don't worry, officer. I have a permit for this. [16:11.780 --> 16:12.740] That couldn't [16:12.740 --> 16:15.940] be further from the truth. There is no such thing as a [16:15.940 --> 16:18.640] get-out-of-jail-free card because [16:19.720 --> 16:22.240] they're absolutely allowed to have that conversation [16:22.240 --> 16:25.080] with you. And by the time you're having that conversation, it is [16:25.080 --> 16:28.060] not in your interest to try to avoid that conversation. [16:28.860 --> 16:31.300] Instead, I want you to think of [16:31.300 --> 16:34.420] if you're having a conversation about lock [16:34.420 --> 16:37.660] picks with a cop, you now [16:37.660 --> 16:40.400] is in your interest to engage [16:40.400 --> 16:43.440] in and expand in and own that conversation rather [16:43.440 --> 16:46.000] than trying to flash some kind of card and [16:46.000 --> 16:49.380] avoid it. The tool membership card, which is [16:49.380 --> 16:52.380] forthcoming, contains a few carefully [16:52.380 --> 16:55.580] crafted paragraphs to help you achieve a productive tone [16:55.580 --> 16:58.460] in that conversation. Essentially, [16:58.460 --> 17:01.600] as it acts as a conversation starter. It's a way [17:01.600 --> 17:04.440] to help you have the conversation effectively rather [17:04.440 --> 17:07.080] than avoid the conversation. [17:08.580 --> 17:10.120] It explains that [17:10.120 --> 17:13.080] tool is an organization that exists, that recreational [17:13.720 --> 17:16.520] locksport is a thing that exists, that the holder of the [17:16.520 --> 17:19.700] card is a member of tool, and it gives a gloss [17:19.700 --> 17:23.020] on the general state of overall laws. [17:23.340 --> 17:25.870] It doesn't overplay its hand. It basically [17:26.940 --> 17:29.160] digs down to the idea that what we [17:29.160 --> 17:31.840] teach and what we do at tool is legal [17:31.840 --> 17:34.900] everywhere in the United States by definition because [17:35.400 --> 17:38.100] locksporters and researchers have a legitimate use for their [17:38.100 --> 17:40.980] picks. And they follow the two rules, the two rules [17:40.980 --> 17:43.980] which are quite famously in tool. Don't pick a lock that you [17:43.980 --> 17:46.800] don't own. Don't pick a lock upon which you rely. If you're following [17:46.800 --> 17:49.880] those rules, then you don't fall afoul of either [17:49.880 --> 17:52.440] formulation of the state law, no matter where you are. [17:53.200 --> 17:55.940] So that helps [17:55.940 --> 17:59.020] set the right tone. If you're a conscientious locksport [17:59.020 --> 18:02.100] practitioner, you know, don't hide them. [18:02.100 --> 18:05.040] Don't lie about why you have them. Essentially, don't act guilty [18:05.040 --> 18:07.740] if you aren't guilty. People sometimes come [18:07.740 --> 18:10.940] to me and say, Preston, that's all well and good, but [18:10.940 --> 18:13.960] what if I'm doing this or that or the other thing? What about [18:13.960 --> 18:17.120] this circumstance? And what I always tell them is [18:17.120 --> 18:20.440] if what you're doing is a crime, then you are literally [18:20.440 --> 18:23.520] doing what the crime of possession of burglary [18:23.520 --> 18:26.140] tools says, and you have no basis to complain. [18:26.920 --> 18:29.140] If, on the other hand, you are not [18:29.140 --> 18:31.940] and you're practicing good locksport ethics and you're following [18:31.940 --> 18:35.040] tools' rules, then you can be [18:35.040 --> 18:37.780] safe in knowing that what you are doing is legal [18:37.780 --> 18:41.100] in every state in the union and you have a card to [18:41.100 --> 18:44.180] help explain that concept to anyone who's asking. [18:45.060 --> 18:47.520] Now, we are very serious about [18:47.520 --> 18:50.760] keeping our members and our friends on the right side of the law. [18:50.840 --> 18:53.520] Nonetheless, and I want to emphasize, this is not [18:53.520 --> 18:56.640] legal advice. This is just wisdom that any person in the society [18:56.640 --> 18:59.740] should know. Let me give you a rule of thumb. [18:59.740 --> 19:02.440] Call it the one crime at a time rule. If you [19:02.440 --> 19:05.520] choose to break the law, don't break the law while you're [19:05.520 --> 19:08.280] breaking the law. Don't accidentally turn a legitimate hobby into [19:08.280 --> 19:11.640] an indictable offense by carrying lockpicks along on a time [19:11.640 --> 19:13.640] when you shouldn't have them. [19:14.180 --> 19:17.060] In the words of legal philosopher William Smith [19:17.060 --> 19:20.940] in the matter of Earth vs. Giant Bug, 1997, [19:20.940 --> 19:24.200] don't start nothing won't be nothing. [19:24.240 --> 19:26.580] I have heard from many police [19:26.580 --> 19:29.060] officers in many different jurisdictions. [19:29.060 --> 19:32.180] I've asked them. I have been on public transit sitting there [19:32.180 --> 19:34.560] picking on my practice locks and [19:35.940 --> 19:39.320] I said, hey guys, I'm sitting here picking locks. [19:39.780 --> 19:42.540] I'm pretty sure that's acceptable. Do you have any problem with it? [19:42.540 --> 19:45.740] And they say, planning on picking locks on the train? Are you planning [19:45.740 --> 19:48.880] on picking locks on the airplane? They don't care. [19:48.900 --> 19:51.740] They have actual crimes to worry about. If you're sitting there as a [19:51.740 --> 19:55.620] law-abiding citizen doing something that's not bothering anybody, [19:55.620 --> 19:59.540] it's not worth their time. [19:59.540 --> 20:02.280] So don't be nervous about it [20:03.640 --> 20:04.480] and don't worry about [20:04.480 --> 20:06.760] ignorance of the law becoming a problem for you [20:06.760 --> 20:09.540] because you're willing to have that conversation. [20:10.280 --> 20:13.400] Another area that people oftentimes ask about [20:13.400 --> 20:16.640] is federal law, particularly [20:16.640 --> 20:17.880] TSA. [20:18.860 --> 20:22.540] DEFCON is one of the most common sources of that question [20:22.540 --> 20:25.160] because people say, well, I just bought lockpicks [20:25.160 --> 20:27.060] but now I can't take them on an airplane. [20:30.620 --> 20:31.620] Well, [20:31.620 --> 20:33.400] it's not a factor. [20:33.400 --> 20:34.480] It is literally [20:35.580 --> 20:39.860] not a factor [20:39.860 --> 20:42.320] because TSA has a set of things that they're looking for [20:42.320 --> 20:44.820] and a set of things that are not on their list. [20:45.320 --> 20:48.420] Because a lockpicking tool is a non-sharp tool [20:48.420 --> 20:51.480] less than 7 inches, it's carry-on approved. [20:51.480 --> 20:55.660] It's simply not disallowed, which means it's allowed. [20:56.140 --> 20:58.600] And don't say this to TSA if you're having that conversation [20:58.600 --> 21:01.840] but the locks on the cockpit doors are not even pin tumbler locks [21:02.560 --> 21:06.220] so all the more reason for it not to be on their list. [21:07.320 --> 21:08.760] After years and years [21:08.760 --> 21:11.820] of asking them, we've got a Twitter conversation [21:11.820 --> 21:13.140] from a bunch of different people here [21:14.800 --> 21:16.600] they finally, their agents [21:16.600 --> 21:19.600] finally added lockpicks [21:20.560 --> 21:21.760] explicitly to their [21:22.440 --> 21:25.680] can I bring my self-service site on the website. [21:27.160 --> 21:29.340] So if this is a concern for you [21:29.340 --> 21:31.060] and you'd like a little extra backup [21:31.640 --> 21:34.360] then feel free, go on the website, take a screenshot [21:34.360 --> 21:36.700] print it out, throw it in your lockpick kit. [21:37.140 --> 21:40.560] I've done it, I know a lot of friends of mine in tool have done it [21:40.560 --> 21:43.500] we carried around our lockpick kit for years and years [21:43.500 --> 21:47.360] until it got ratty and torn up, then we threw it away and we never used it. [21:47.460 --> 21:49.860] Once again, because TSA agents [21:49.860 --> 21:51.660] just don't care. But remember [21:52.420 --> 21:54.200] like anything that you want to carry on a plane [21:54.200 --> 21:57.600] the TSA agent gets the last call. So be polite [21:57.600 --> 21:59.640] be friendly, be patient with them [22:00.640 --> 22:03.740] whether you're doing an opt-out or bringing something unusual [22:03.740 --> 22:06.840] through carry-on, just make sure you have enough time to have the discussion [22:06.840 --> 22:09.880] without being rushed or being flustered. Yes, I like [22:09.880 --> 22:12.600] opting out, there's good ethical reasons to it [22:12.600 --> 22:15.720] even though sometimes it's a pain in the butt. If I'm in a hurry, I don't want to [22:15.720 --> 22:17.780] miss my flight, yeah, I'll go through the scanner [22:19.700 --> 22:20.960] carrying lockpicks is likewise [22:20.960 --> 22:23.420] if I'm really in a hurry, I'll just check them [22:23.420 --> 22:26.400] but for the most part, I like carrying them on A, because I know where they are [22:26.400 --> 22:28.500] because they're valuable and make sure they don't get broken [22:28.500 --> 22:32.180] but also to make sure that I'm practicing what I preach and telling people [22:32.180 --> 22:35.700] yes, it's not a problem and on the rare occasion I have those conversations [22:35.700 --> 22:38.920] then I can make it that much easier for the next person coming behind me [22:38.920 --> 22:41.900] that's bringing lockpicks. One of the best [22:41.900 --> 22:44.580] pieces of advice I get when I got in law school [22:44.580 --> 22:47.040] when you're having conversations like this is [22:47.580 --> 22:50.480] always try to seem like the most reasonable person in the room [22:50.480 --> 22:53.760] seem like the most reasonable person in the room [22:53.760 --> 22:56.860] if you seem like you're prepared for the conversation, if it's not a surprise [22:56.860 --> 22:59.620] for you, then that [22:59.620 --> 23:02.400] really helps them be that much more calm about it [23:04.780 --> 23:05.800] As a last resort [23:05.800 --> 23:08.820] many airports will give you the option to mail something home rather than [23:08.820 --> 23:11.780] trashing it. Another great option if you've got time to take [23:11.780 --> 23:13.080] advantage of it. [23:14.160 --> 23:17.300] Here's what I do when I'm taking my lockpicks [23:17.300 --> 23:20.800] through an airport. This is my bin on the inside [23:20.800 --> 23:23.280] of security at San Francisco [23:23.780 --> 23:25.720] note the gigantic bag of lockpicks [23:25.720 --> 23:29.500] including the fuzzy handcuffs right on top just in case anyone wants to [23:29.500 --> 23:32.000] get curious. That's all totally legal [23:32.000 --> 23:35.960] as are the Bogotas in my wallet which is there on the right [23:35.960 --> 23:37.360] no one ever notices that [23:38.360 --> 23:40.800] Ironically, the illegal thing in the picture [23:41.240 --> 23:43.080] is that little bottle of crack and rum [23:43.080 --> 23:46.160] I totally did not know that you're not allowed to bring little bottles [23:46.160 --> 23:49.420] through security or under the airplane. You're not allowed to provide your own booze [23:49.420 --> 23:52.580] So yes, there is something illegal going on in that picture. No, it's not the [23:52.580 --> 23:55.580] lockpicks. Yes, it is the booze. A note on having fun with [23:55.580 --> 23:58.820] TSA. I like putting the handcuffs on top [23:58.820 --> 24:01.680] because if they're going to open up the bag [24:01.680 --> 24:04.460] I like to put a smile on their face. It gives them the problem [24:04.460 --> 24:07.680] of do they dig around the handcuffs? Are they allowed [24:07.680 --> 24:10.540] to pick the handcuffs up? This is a dildo [24:10.540 --> 24:13.460] versus your dildo territory. So [24:14.220 --> 24:16.400] as long as they're going to have the conversation, there's no reason [24:16.400 --> 24:18.920] we can't make it a little bit fun. And before you ask [24:19.460 --> 24:21.140] yes, handcuffs are also legal [24:21.140 --> 24:25.580] are also permitted in carry-on. Lots of good reasons for that including [24:26.100 --> 24:28.380] security officers and police officers that always travel [24:28.380 --> 24:31.340] with handcuffs. A few years ago [24:31.440 --> 24:33.640] a lady Gaga brought her own fuzzy handcuffs [24:33.640 --> 24:36.620] and there was a bit of a hullabaloo about it. But [24:36.620 --> 24:39.580] they were of course allowed on. So [24:40.600 --> 24:42.880] fun lockpick tricks. Just [24:42.880 --> 24:46.340] carry fuzzy handcuffs as well. It helps [24:46.340 --> 24:49.300] set the conversation on the right mode. A comment that I [24:49.300 --> 24:51.980] got from Max who works with [24:51.980 --> 24:54.920] TOOL. He said always remember that [24:54.920 --> 24:58.040] you can help the conversation along by [24:58.040 --> 25:00.800] giving some framing. So if you see [25:00.800 --> 25:03.980] your bag of lockpicks go through the x-ray [25:03.980 --> 25:07.200] and the person's eyes kind of light up and they shunt it off to the [25:07.200 --> 25:09.760] side for further inspection, wave at the guy [25:10.880 --> 25:13.000] as you're walking over. So that's the [25:13.000 --> 25:15.940] conversation just right. I see you've got my bag of lockpicking [25:15.940 --> 25:19.200] equipment there. I do this, that, or the other thing. [25:19.200 --> 25:22.080] I do locksport as a hobby. Inside you will find [25:22.080 --> 25:25.140] the following things. You can help them get [25:25.140 --> 25:27.320] in the right frame and there's kind of an art to [25:27.840 --> 25:31.200] helping them arrive at their own conclusions rather than dictating to them [25:31.200 --> 25:33.960] in a way that might make them suspicious. [25:34.420 --> 25:37.300] Don't avoid the conversation. Welcome the chance to practice [25:37.300 --> 25:40.520] the conversation. It's almost always no big deal [25:40.520 --> 25:43.920] because again, it's a non-sharp tool less than 7 inches. [25:45.200 --> 25:46.320] We will pass [25:46.320 --> 25:49.280] handcuffs and we will go to the rest of the world [25:49.280 --> 25:51.940] and people often ask me now [25:51.940 --> 25:55.320] that I've talked about the United States, what about the rest of the world? [25:55.320 --> 25:58.280] And the answer is the rest of the world does not differ materially [25:58.280 --> 26:01.240] from the United States for the most part. [26:01.400 --> 26:03.200] Everywhere around the world you'll find [26:03.920 --> 26:07.480] countries and individual jurisdictions with both formulations. [26:07.480 --> 26:09.920] The most common formulation is possession plus intent [26:09.920 --> 26:13.400] but there are some places that have possession implies intent. [26:13.480 --> 26:16.500] So Commonwealth, UK, Australia, New Zealand, [26:16.500 --> 26:19.220] Canada, they're all legal. Some of them [26:19.220 --> 26:22.880] are possession plus intent. Some of them are possession implies intent [26:22.880 --> 26:25.700] but none of them make it strictly illegal. [26:25.700 --> 26:28.660] Netherlands, as we know, Tool having started in the Netherlands [26:28.660 --> 26:32.380] perfectly legal and there's quite a robust culture there. [26:32.440 --> 26:34.440] Israel, a little bit more tightened down. [26:34.440 --> 26:37.720] They're definitely in the possession implies intent camp [26:37.720 --> 26:40.180] and I'm given to understand that in China [26:40.180 --> 26:43.600] they are fairly illegal but like many things in China [26:43.600 --> 26:46.620] it depends on who your patron is. So yes, when Tool [26:46.620 --> 26:49.520] goes to China we do take lockpicks with us. [26:49.520 --> 26:52.460] We teach lockpicking there and we get it all cleared [26:52.460 --> 26:55.240] through the proper authorities and we haven't had a problem yet. [26:55.820 --> 26:58.640] Now there's one last thing that needs to be said [26:58.640 --> 27:01.520] before I round this out which is 2020 [27:01.520 --> 27:04.360] is in some ways different than other years. [27:04.360 --> 27:07.360] In some ways no different than it ever was. We're just [27:07.360 --> 27:10.360] learning more about it now. The Black Lives Matter movement [27:10.360 --> 27:13.360] has really drawn a lot more attention [27:13.360 --> 27:16.400] to the interaction between young [27:16.400 --> 27:19.140] black people, people of color, and law enforcement [27:19.140 --> 27:22.500] and it wouldn't be right to finish this talk [27:22.500 --> 27:25.040] without mentioning that all the advice I gave [27:25.040 --> 27:28.360] works great if you are a [27:29.260 --> 27:32.140] white reasonably well-educated male [27:32.140 --> 27:34.720] lawyer. Does it work as well if [27:34.720 --> 27:38.060] you're not some of those things? And the only answer I can tell you is [27:38.060 --> 27:40.140] all the principles remain the same but it is [27:40.140 --> 27:43.540] absolutely hard mode. It's no surprise [27:43.540 --> 27:46.640] that you might have to speak [27:46.640 --> 27:49.680] better, understand better, make yourself heard better [27:49.680 --> 27:52.540] to get the same results and there's nothing [27:52.540 --> 27:55.600] that I can say to make that okay in this talk or to really [27:55.600 --> 27:58.120] give a lot of insight from a perspective other than mine [27:58.120 --> 28:01.440] but I do want to acknowledge that the law [28:01.440 --> 28:03.720] is the same and many of the same principles apply [28:04.540 --> 28:07.240] but it's hard mode. So [28:07.240 --> 28:10.620] that is the laws of lockpicking. I understand as we end [28:10.620 --> 28:13.520] this I'll have a chance to take questions. So for anyone who has questions [28:13.520 --> 28:16.460] about lockpicking in the U.S., around the world, who has stories they [28:16.460 --> 28:19.640] want to tell, who has hypotheticals that they want to get insight [28:19.640 --> 28:22.040] on, I would be happy to share them. Mostly [28:22.040 --> 28:25.540] thank you for showing up for this conversation. Happy lockpicking. [28:25.540 --> 28:26.720] Look forward to seeing you around.