10M people watched a YouTuber shim a lock; the lock company sued him – bad idea

Public backlash and harassment

• Several commenters condemn doxxing, threats, and harassment of the lock company owner’s family as “mob justice” that mirrors the bullying behavior they’re reacting to.
• Others argue that when a business owner publicly posts toxic, taunting messages and files a dubious lawsuit, they knowingly “poke the internet bear” and can’t be surprised by a hostile response, though actual threats should be handled by law enforcement.
• General concern that online crowds amplify harm, and that people lash out this way because they don’t trust formal legal systems to provide real remedies.

Legal abuse, DMCA, and anti-SLAPP

• Many see false or abusive DMCA claims as a modern form of SLAPP, used to intimidate critics via cost and stress rather than legal merit.
• Commenters note DMCA’s “under penalty of perjury” language is effectively unenforced; calls for statutory damages or real penalties for bogus takedowns.
• Anti-SLAPP statutes help but are patchy (no federal law; circuit splits on using state laws in federal court) and hard to invoke for ordinary people who can’t easily afford lawyers.
• Suggestions include: stronger anti-SLAPP, easy layperson “this is a stupid lawsuit” dismissal motions, and fee-shifting to deter frivolous suits.

Company behavior and the Streisand effect

• People highlight that the company initially posted a reasonably constructive response video (acknowledging the issue, explaining context, upselling more secure cores) but then escalated with DMCA takedowns and a lawsuit.
• The lawsuit backfired: it exposed weak claims, elicited damaging testimony (employees reproducing the bypass), and massively amplified the original criticism.
• Attempts to seal the case record and complaints about harassment are viewed as classic Streisand effect and “bully, then retreat” behavior.

Effectiveness and purpose of locks

• Long subthreads stress that most locks mainly:
  • Deter casual or incompetent thieves.
  • Add time, noise, and evidence of forced entry (useful for insurance and forensics).
• Skilled attackers use bolt cutters, grinders, jacks, or simply attack the door, frame, or window instead of the lock.
• Non-destructive bypasses like shimming and bumping are seen as uniquely bad because they’re fast, low‑skill, and often leave little trace.

Lockpicking media and security culture

• Many praise lockpicking creators for exposing overstated marketing claims and pushing manufacturers to improve designs.
• There’s criticism of the traditional locksmith culture of “security by obscurity” and suing researchers instead of fixing vulnerabilities.
• Consensus view: transparency and responsible disclosure improve real-world security, whereas litigious suppression attempts mostly damage trust and reputation.