WEBVTT 00:00.920 --> 00:05.360 Welcome, welcome everybody to a very unusual DEF CON. 00:05.360 --> 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. 00:13.740 --> 00:15.460 We're so glad you're here. 00:15.500 --> 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. 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 --> 00:41.360 I'm a licensed attorney barred in the District of Columbia and in California, which is, importantly, different than barred from D.C. 00:41.360 --> 00:42.480 and California. 00:42.580 --> 00:48.520 I've done this talk before, including at DEF CON, but 2020 has brought this topic into a new light. 00:48.520 --> 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. 00:58.240 --> 01:00.420 Hacking is, by nature, subversive. 01:00.420 --> 01:01.740 Lockpicking is no different. 01:01.740 --> 01:10.060 So , like journalists and priests and security researchers, 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 --> 01:20.080 For certain types of people, encountering something they don't understand makes them nervous, irrational, maybe even angry. 01:20.680 --> 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. 01:31.720 --> 01:32.940 Falls to me to explain. 01:32.960 --> 01:36.700 I've had this particular conversation hundreds of times. 01:36.700 --> 01:39.840 So, this talk today, it isn't for you. 01:39.840 --> 01:41.080 It's for me. 01:41.080 --> 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. 01:50.440 --> 01:52.340 I'm tired. 01:52.340 --> 01:56.000 I want to be done talking about this, but people won't let me. 01:56.280 --> 01:57.220 Help me. 01:57.220 --> 01:58.120 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 --> 02:09.720 This is so, so not legal advice. 02:09.720 --> 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. 02:14.060 --> 02:16.240 Also, my opinions are my own. 02:16.240 --> 02:18.720 They don't represent TOOL or anyone I work for. 02:18.720 --> 02:20.060 Standard disclaimer. 02:20.640 --> 02:25.240 Law & Order was a great show because half was the cops and half was the lawyers. 02:25.280 --> 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. 02:32.120 --> 02:34.060 There's great stuff on YouTube about that. 02:34.060 --> 02:36.040 This is not that talk. 02:36.040 --> 02:42.760 This talk is more the second part, the order part, about why lockpicking laws are the way they are. 02:42.880 --> 02:48.760 And what it means for you as a practitioner dealing with lots of non-practitioners. 02:49.320 --> 02:54.240 Everyone has legal theories about lots of parts of daily life, not just lockpicking. 02:54.240 --> 02:56.260 Most of them are workable. 02:56.260 --> 02:57.920 Some of them are nonsensical. 02:57.920 --> 03:00.020 Some of them are absolutely bananas. 03:00.040 --> 03:03.320 And where do loopy legal theories tend to come from? 03:04.200 --> 03:05.660 Armchair lawyers. 03:05.680 --> 03:10.820 Armchair lawyers everywhere with their good old University of Wikipedia law degree. 03:10.820 --> 03:15.360 And their specialty area is something I like to call folk law. 03:15.360 --> 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. 03:20.500 --> 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. 03:31.820 --> 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. 03:41.900 --> 03:44.120 So let's get real. 03:44.120 --> 03:47.160 Today, let's do this law school style. 03:47.160 --> 03:52.320 We're going to be concrete, specific, and clear in how we use words. 03:53.380 --> 03:57.500 Let's start off this law school for lockpickers by building a law. 03:57.500 --> 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. 04:05.900 --> 04:08.420 Criminal laws are constructed of elements. 04:08.420 --> 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. 04:14.640 --> 04:18.320 In the case of a burglary tool statute, there's usually two elements. 04:18.540 --> 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. 04:28.500 --> 04:32.200 You can call this formula Possession plus Intent. 04:32.840 --> 04:35.100 Now, intent is difficult to get at. 04:35.100 --> 04:36.620 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 --> 04:53.000 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. 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 --> 05:06.260 Mere possession of lockpicks without any circumstances indicating unlawful intent, 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 --> 05:17.040 We colored them green just because it's nice, it's soothing, it sends the right message across. 05:17.320 --> 05:24.420 But what about those shadowy places you say in your best 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 --> 05:36.680 So, who better to provide evidence about the state of someone's mind than the person themselves? 05:36.760 --> 05:43.540 That is the thinking behind that minority of states that just throw up their hands and say, you tell me. 05:43.840 --> 05:47.980 I'm looking at you, Virginia, Ohio, Mississippi, Nevada. 05:48.160 --> 05:56.260 Laws change over time, but they pretty much solidify down to these four as having the possession plus intent formulation. 05:56.800 --> 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. 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 --> 06:14.060 For those of you who like to follow along, this is Criminal Code 18.2-94. 06:14.140 --> 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. 06:26.280 --> 06:29.080 So, let's talk about that prima facie word. 06:29.080 --> 06:31.660 It's not law school without some Latin. 06:31.660 --> 06:33.080 Let's dive into it. 06:33.080 --> 06:39.080 Prima facie, Latin, literally means on first face, or on first impression, you can figure. 06:39.880 --> 06:46.840 In plain English, that means if I didn't know better, I'd say something. 06:46.840 --> 06:49.120 I'd say you're up to no good. 06:49.680 --> 06:54.620 Turning that back into legal language, that's referred to as a rebuttable presumption. 06:54.620 --> 06:57.420 It's a presumption because it starts off set to true. 06:57.420 --> 06:58.600 Default value, true. 06:58.600 --> 07:02.080 It's rebuttable because that default value can be changed. 07:02.400 --> 07:05.960 Which means the ball is in your court. 07:05.960 --> 07:10.540 Or, in more colloquial terms, prima facie means splainer. 07:10.540 --> 07:14.820 And I put this gif up there and I'm increasingly surprised how few people know what it's from. 07:14.820 --> 07:21.900 If you don't recognize this gif, congratulations on your high school graduation, I guess. 07:23.240 --> 07:32.440 Okay, so people will often say, but I have a presumption of innocence, 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 --> 07:41.060 But the presumption of innocence is not one of the rights that's guaranteed in the Constitution. 07:41.060 --> 07:42.520 You can read it, it's not that long. 07:42.580 --> 07:44.540 You should read it, it's worth the read. 07:44.680 --> 07:49.540 And one of the things you'll notice, there's no 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 --> 07:54.620 Coffin v. 07:54.620 --> 07:57.780 United States is one of the first cases you study in law school. 07:57.900 --> 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. 08:07.960 --> 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. 08:17.820 --> 08:19.360 There's two things DAs hate. 08:19.360 --> 08:22.380 They hate crime and they hate losing cases. 08:22.700 --> 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. 08:39.420 --> 08:40.640 He doesn't want to go down that route. 08:40.640 --> 08:42.020 That's not what his job is. 08:42.020 --> 08:43.660 He's got much bigger fish to fry. 08:43.660 --> 08:56.080 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. 08:56.080 --> 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. 09:09.560 --> 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. 09:23.000 --> 09:33.700 Now, there's kind of a sense of boo-hit about these states that have possession implies intent formulation. 09:35.700 --> 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. 09:42.000 --> 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. 09:48.400 --> 09:51.260 So, I decided let's look at some of them. 09:51.720 --> 09:53.980 First of all, I didn't know what the Nevada flag looked like. 09:53.980 --> 09:56.880 I had to look that up just for this presentation. 09:57.460 --> 09:59.500 Here's what Nevada decided. 10:01.260 --> 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. 10:19.440 --> 10:26.020 This is an illustrative example of the kind of reasoning 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 --> 10:41.080 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. 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 --> 10:47.980 It's very simple. 10:48.360 --> 10:53.980 Maybe it makes some of our civil liberties impulses a little squeamish, but it's not unreasonable. 10:54.940 --> 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. 11:05.780 --> 11:08.560 So why shouldn't we imply intent? 11:08.560 --> 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. 11:18.680 --> 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. 11:39.600 --> 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. 11:50.220 --> 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. 12:06.700 --> 12:12.620 Most people carrying axes, sledgehammers hacks, hammers, etc. 12:12.620 --> 12:15.240 are using for legal purposes. 12:15.240 --> 12:20.560 So why in this case would we infer that they're using it for anything other than legal purpose? 12:20.560 --> 12:24.260 When you walk through it like that, it's kind of tortured logic. 12:24.260 --> 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. 12:31.760 --> 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. 12:39.920 --> 12:45.440 I know some of you in the back are saying, hey, aren't there different types of intent under the law? 12:45.520 --> 12:47.380 Yes, but that's not relevant here. 12:47.600 --> 12:50.320 Any intent will do for this particular formulation. 12:51.540 --> 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. 13:03.220 --> 13:05.340 It turns out I have a favorite lockpicking case. 13:05.340 --> 13:08.120 We are once again back in the District of Columbia. 13:08.360 --> 13:08.940 This is a D.C. 13:08.940 --> 13:11.880 appeals court, still relatively recently, from 2014. 13:12.260 --> 13:13.320 In re J.W. 13:13.320 --> 13:14.580 means there was a minor involved. 13:14.580 --> 13:18.200 So some kid under 18 got nicked by the cops. 13:18.360 --> 13:19.820 Funny circumstances. 13:19.860 --> 13:20.820 Here's what happened. 13:21.460 --> 13:22.040 J.W. 13:22.040 --> 13:26.580 was arrested red-handed trying to steal a Vespa with a pair of bolt cutters. 13:26.780 --> 13:31.960 He was charged with possession of implements of a crime, which is the usual statute that applies to lockpicking. 13:32.060 --> 13:34.500 Both elements are satisfied, no question. 13:34.500 --> 13:41.360 He's sitting there, middle of the night, by the Vespa , bolt cutters in hand, definition of caught red-handed . 13:41.420 --> 13:44.440 Absolutely possession, absolutely intent. 13:44.780 --> 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. 13:55.740 --> 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. 14:07.340 --> 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. 14:14.720 --> 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. 14:29.840 --> 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. 14:40.080 --> 14:47.420 Conclusion, no possession of tools designed for picking locks and J.W. 14:47.420 --> 14:52.640 goes free and anyone who complains about that gets to go back and write the statute a little bit more carefully. 14:53.360 --> 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. 15:03.480 --> 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. 15:20.500 --> 15:24.700 So, here's the part that I think a lot of people show up for. 15:24.740 --> 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. 15:35.340 --> 15:36.860 So, let's talk about it. 15:36.860 --> 15:41.220 This is in those states where possession implies intent. 15:41.220 --> 15:43.340 Those minority of states. 15:44.080 --> 15:46.000 Well, what can we do to protect ourselves? 15:46.020 --> 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. 15:53.440 --> 15:55.080 So, what do we do about it? 15:55.080 --> 15:58.780 And something that often comes up is have a card. 15:58.780 --> 16:03.200 Have some kind of self-made card or a more professional card. 16:03.280 --> 16:03.680 Poof. 16:03.680 --> 16:04.360 Problem solved. 16:04.360 --> 16:08.840 This is that fantasy of holding it up to the officer and saying, don't worry, officer. 16:08.840 --> 16:10.360 I have a permit for this. 16:11.780 --> 16:14.140 That couldn't be further from the truth. 16:14.140 --> 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 . 16:22.480 --> 16:28.060 And by the time you're having that conversation, it is not in your interest to try to avoid that conversation. 16:28.860 --> 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. 16:47.200 --> 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. 16:57.740 --> 17:00.700 Essentially, as it acts as a conversation starter. 17:00.880 --> 17:07.080 It's a way to help you have the conversation effectively rather than avoid the conversation. 17:08.580 --> 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. 17:23.340 --> 17:24.760 It doesn't overplay its hand. 17:25.180 --> 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. 17:38.680 --> 17:42.500 And they follow the two rules, the two rules which are quite famously in tool. 17:42.740 --> 17:44.720 Don't pick a lock that you don't own. 17:44.720 --> 17:46.200 Don't pick a lock upon which you rely. 17:46.200 --> 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. 17:53.200 --> 17:57.420 So that helps set the right tone. 17:57.440 --> 18:02.100 If you're a conscientious locksport practitioner, you know, don't hide them. 18:02.100 --> 18:03.920 Don't lie about why you have them. 18:03.920 --> 18:06.320 Essentially, don't act guilty if you aren't guilty. 18:06.720 --> 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? 18:13.680 --> 18:15.280 What about this circumstance? 18:15.580 --> 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. 18:26.920 --> 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. 18:45.060 --> 18:50.760 Now, we are very serious about keeping our members and our friends on the right side of the law. 18:50.840 --> 18:54.160 Nonetheless, and I want to emphasize, this is not legal advice. 18:54.160 --> 18:57.680 This is just wisdom that any person in the society should know. 18:57.940 --> 18:59.740 Let me give you a rule of thumb. 18:59.740 --> 19:02.100 Call it the one crime at a time rule. 19:02.100 --> 19:06.240 If you choose to break the law, don't break the law while you're breaking the law. 19:06.240 --> 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. 19:14.180 --> 19:18.580 In the words of legal philosopher William Smith in the matter of Earth vs. 19:18.580 --> 19:24.200 Giant Bug, 1997, don't start nothing won't be nothing. 19:24.240 --> 19:29.060 I have heard from many police officers in many different jurisdictions. 19:29.060 --> 19:30.180 I've asked them. 19:30.180 --> 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. 19:39.780 --> 19:41.580 I'm pretty sure that's acceptable. 19:41.580 --> 19:42.540 Do you have any problem with it? 19:42.540 --> 19:45.420 And they say, planning on picking locks on the train? 19:45.420 --> 19:47.480 Are you planning on picking locks on the airplane? 19:47.600 --> 19:48.880 They don't care. 19:48.900 --> 19:50.820 They have actual crimes to worry about. 19:50.820 --> 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. 19:57.740 --> 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. 20:10.280 --> 20:17.880 Another area that people oftentimes ask about is federal law, particularly TSA. 20:18.860 --> 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. 20:30.620 --> 20:33.400 Well, it's not a factor. 20:33.400 --> 20:36.100 It is literally not 20:39.620 --> 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. 20:45.320 --> 20:51.480 Because a lockpicking tool is a non-sharp tool 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 --> 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. 21:07.320 --> 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. 21:27.160 --> 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. 21:37.140 --> 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. 21:47.460 --> 21:51.260 Once again, because TSA agents just don't care. 21:51.260 --> 21:56.340 But remember like anything that you want to carry on a plane the TSA agent gets the last call. 21:56.340 --> 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. 22:09.060 --> 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. 22:14.300 --> 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, 22:32.740 --> 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. 22:41.020 --> 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, 22:55.920 --> 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. 23:09.680 --> 23:13.080 Another great option if you've got time to take advantage of it. 23:14.160 --> 23:18.580 Here's what I do when I'm taking my lockpicks through an airport. 23:18.660 --> 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. 23:30.520 --> 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. 23:48.120 --> 23:52.060 You're not allowed to provide your own booze So yes, there is something illegal going on in that picture. 23:52.060 --> 23:53.000 No, it's not the lockpicks. 23:53.000 --> 23:54.180 Yes, it is the booze. 23:54.260 --> 23:56.360 A note on having fun with TSA. 23:57.120 --> 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. 24:03.500 --> 24:07.200 It gives them the problem of do they dig around the handcuffs? 24:07.200 --> 24:09.100 Are they allowed to pick the handcuffs up? 24:09.100 --> 24:12.440 This is a dildo versus your dildo territory. 24:13.080 --> 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. 24:18.060 --> 24:24.000 And before you ask yes, handcuffs are also legal are also permitted in carry-on. 24:24.000 --> 24:29.660 Lots of good reasons for that including security officers and police officers that always travel with handcuffs. 24:30.220 --> 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. 24:36.460 --> 24:39.020 But they were of course allowed on. 24:39.420 --> 24:42.540 So fun lockpick tricks. 24:42.620 --> 24:45.380 Just carry fuzzy handcuffs as well. 24:45.600 --> 24:48.320 It helps set the conversation on the right mode. 24:48.540 --> 24:52.820 A comment that I got from Max who works with TOOL. 24:52.820 --> 24:59.320 He said always remember that you can help the conversation along by giving some framing. 24:59.320 --> 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. 25:12.600 --> 25:14.140 So that's the conversation just right. 25:14.140 --> 25:17.160 I see you've got my bag of lockpicking equipment there. 25:17.580 --> 25:19.200 I do this, that, or the other thing. 25:19.200 --> 25:21.120 I do locksport as a hobby. 25:21.120 --> 25:23.360 Inside you will find the following things. 25:23.520 --> 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. 25:34.420 --> 25:36.260 Don't avoid the conversation. 25:36.340 --> 25:38.420 Welcome the chance to practice the conversation. 25:38.540 --> 25:43.920 It's almost always no big deal because again, it's a non-sharp tool less than 7 inches. 25:45.200 --> 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? 25:55.320 --> 26:01.240 And the answer is the rest of the world does not differ materially from the United States for the most part. 26:01.400 --> 26:07.480 Everywhere around the world you'll find countries and individual jurisdictions with both formulations. 26:07.480 --> 26:13.400 The most common formulation is possession plus intent but there are some places that have possession implies intent. 26:13.480 --> 26:18.620 So Commonwealth, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, they're all legal. 26:18.640 --> 26:21.180 Some of them are possession plus intent. 26:21.180 --> 26:25.700 Some of them are possession implies intent but none of them make it strictly illegal. 26:25.700 --> 26:32.380 Netherlands, as we know, Tool having started in the Netherlands 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 --> 26:45.300 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. 26:45.300 --> 26:49.520 So yes, when Tool goes to China we do take lockpicks with us. 26:49.520 --> 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. 26:55.820 --> 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. 27:04.360 --> 27:06.920 In some ways no different than it ever was. 27:06.920 --> 27:09.020 We're just learning more about it now. 27:09.020 --> 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 . 27:32.560 --> 27:35.800 Does it work as well if you're not some of those things? 27:35.800 --> 27:42.160 And the only answer I can tell you is all the principles remain the same but it is absolutely hard mode. 27:42.380 --> 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. 28:07.000 --> 28:09.180 So that is the laws of lockpicking. 28:09.180 --> 28:12.340 I understand as we end this I'll have a chance to take questions. 28:12.340 --> 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. 28:21.720 --> 28:24.380 Mostly thank you for showing up for this conversation. 28:24.560 --> 28:25.540 Happy lockpicking. 28:25.540 --> 28:26.720 Look forward to seeing you around.