Malady Homes LLC 
Home Improvement: Painting, Repairs & More
"If the primary locks on your doors are entry locksets, and they're working fine, there's probably little to gain by replacing them. None of the entry locksets afforded great protection, not even top-rated ones. If you want to make your doors more secure, start by beefing up the hardware in their door jambs."
-Consumer Reports recommendation
Below are the results of Consumer Reports ratings on the security of door locks.
Rating Legend
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
100-80
79-60
59-40
39-20
19-0
Which lockset are you currently using?
Brand and Model
Price
Overall Score
Kicking*
Jimmying
Extracting
Hammering
Notes
SH
LS
HS
PRIMARY LOCKS: ENTRY LOCKSETS
Schlage F51NV
$21
21
J
EZ-Set CS 100
10
19
A
NT Harloc 59-700
17
19
B,N
Titan 740
22
19
C,D
Kwikset 400T
12
14
D,O
Weslock SV460
30
13
B,D,J,N
MasterLock 13232
22
11
B,N
National H446
21
11
B,J
PRIMARY LOCKS: ENTRANCE HANDLESETS
National H425
$64
61
F,O
Schlage F160NV
80
49
A,F,G,H
Weslock 00361
76
49
D,E,F
NT Harloc 49-1020
47
48
D,F
Kwikset 681-B
69
47
A,D,O
EZ-Set CS 400
59
46
A,F
AUXILLARY LOCKS: CYLINDER DEADBOLT MODELS
National H479
$30
68
E,F,H
National H474
18
59
F
Masterlock 1400330
22
58
B,E,F,H
Weslock 486
32
57
D,E
Segal 520
24
52
F,I,L
Weslock 371
19
50
D,E
Schlage B460
28
49
B,F,G,H,L
Schlage B160NV
21
48
A,F,G,H
Kwikset 660
14
42
D,L
EZ-Set CS200U
10
39
A,F
NT Harloc 49-820
14
38
B,F
NT Harloc 59-920
18
36
B,F,N
The following lock has a double cylinder suitable for use on doors with glass in or around it.
Kwikset 587
24
68
A,D,E,F,K
AUXILLARY LOCKS: SURFACE-MOUNTED DEADBOLT MODELS
Lori 1200
$33
58
---
B,D,F,L
Segal 666
45
52
---
F,L
Segal Slamlock 466
55
50
---
F,M,L
Florida law aims to cut down on number of false security alarms, By Nancy L. Othón
South Florida Sun-Sentinel - September 5, 2006
A new Florida law aimed at reducing the massive number of false alarms that law enforcement officers must investigate requires security companies to call two phone numbers before notifying police.
Studies have shown that at least 95 percent of those calls are false alarms.
The Alarm Association of Florida lobbied for the law partly to stave off any talk that law enforcement would stop responding to alarms altogether. Most false alarms happen because of user error, said Bob Worthy, the association's treasurer.
"The industry has done quite a bit to reduce unnecessary dispatches through manufacturing, putting some things in to the panel that will help the user not make mistakes," said Worthy, who owns the Coral Springs company Secure Technologies. "But this movement of law enforcement to say `no more' was starting to gain some speed."
Tests on the enhanced call verification system have made an immediate 35 percent to 40 percent reduction in false dispatches, Worthy said. Some municipalities incorporated the system into their laws and some alarm companies voluntarily made it policy, Worthy said, but it wasn't enough.
Broward County Sheriff's spokesman Hugh Graf said false alarms have long been a major concern, but his agency would never refuse to respond to alarm calls as other agencies have.
"We're not going to turn our backs on an alarm," Graf said. "Sure, as an agency we're very supportive of anything that will free up our deputies to answer real calls. We're eager to see how it works out."
Answering those false alarms isn't cheap for law enforcement.
Taking into account a deputy's salary as well as that of a dispatcher who gets involved in a false alarm, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office estimates false alarms costs taxpayers more than $3 million a year, said Deputy Charles Mosher of the alarms-enforcement unit.
Last year, the Sheriff's Office responded to more than 60,000 alarms, Mosher said.
"What we're looking for is at least 30 [percent] to 40 percent reduction in false alarms," he said. "Whether we realize that goal or not, I'd be happy with 10 percent, but I'd be ecstatic at 30 percent."
As a result of the "enhanced call verification" law, homeowners must give their security companies alternate numbers, such as their cell phone. Many security companies already have multiple contact numbers for customers, but this law ensures they don't immediately call for law enforcement if they don't get a response from the homeowner on the first try.
The potential for delay, no matter how miniscule, gives Delray Beach police Lt. Marc Woods pause.
"There are some areas where the two-phone-call system might not be appropriate," Woods said. "I support all measures to increase the care and maintenance of alarm systems to prevent false alarms; however, there is a need to have immediate notification under certain circumstances ... The time it takes to make two phone calls could be problematic."
Woods cites the time of day or the location of the alarm call, such as a jewelry store, as instances in which police would want to respond as quickly as possible. Many home burglaries are committed in the early-morning hours, Woods said.
"At 3 a.m., it could take a long time to answer the phone," Woods said.
The enhanced calling is not required if the home or business has monitored cameras or audio equipment or sensors that verify an alarm has been legitimately tripped, according to the law.
Delray Beach is in the process of rewriting its alarm law in an effort to make homeowners more responsible, Woods said. The city currently allows three alarm responses per year before imposing a $25 fine. The fine likely will be raised in the new law, Woods said.
Nancy L. Othón can be reached at nothon@sun-sentinel.com or 561-243-6633.
Copyright © 2006, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
LENGTH: 414 words
HEADLINE: Police commission vote aims to curb response to false burglar alarms
BYLINE: David Zahniser Copley News Service
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES
BODY: The Police Commission voted Tuesday to reduce sharply the Los Angeles Police Department's responses to private security alarms, saying false alarm calls are a drain on limited police resources.
Under the special order passed by the commission, officers will no longer go to the site of a triggered alarm unless the security company running the alarm has verified visually that an emergency is taking place.
The vote drew protests from homeowners and owners of small businesses alike, who said they were losing the one tool that allows them to cope with the city's lack of police coverage. "We've lived with (the lack of officers) and we accept that," said James O'Sullivan, president of the Miracle Mile Residential Association. "But the one thing that happens when we go to bed at night is we set the alarm, and we fully expect that when the alarm goes off, the police are going to come."
The proposal comes as Police Chief William Bratton and the commission, whose five members are appointed by Mayor James Hahn, look for ways to redirect resources in a department that is short hundreds of officers.
The LAPD responds to nearly 136,000 burglary alarm calls annually, 92 percent of which have been deemed false, according to department figures. By avoiding such alarm calls, police officials believe they will increase patrol time by 15 percent.
"We have to deal with the deployment," said Commissioner David Cunningham III. "We can't bring in 1,000 officers overnight."
Representatives of the security industry argue that the new procedure would cause alarm costs to skyrocket by up to $800 per home annually, by forcing consumers to purchase video cameras or other, more expensive security systems. Residents of low-income neighborhoods, they said, will be affected the most.
"Who we're really hurting here is the low-end consumer that cannot afford ... the patrol, the armed response or the new technology," said Tony Storm, vice president of a Culver City-based security company. "Not responding to those people would be a crime in itself."
Arnie Bell, president of the Southern California Security Association, said the industry will press the City Council to reverse the commission's action, which will be followed in six months by a reworked alarm ordinance.
The special order passed Tuesday does offer two exceptions: alarms that go off at firearms businesses or at buildings patrolled by the LAPD, including the offices of the City Council.
