Fiend at Court Unplugged
The “Tragically Beautiful: Locked Tennis Courts” post from last weekend generated a couple of comments that sparked the realization that I had a lot more thoughts on this topic. First and foremost, is the fundamental truth that padlocking a court prevents people from playing tennis, but it does not prevent vandalism. A padlock is simply not a very effective security mechanism.
Someone intent on damaging a tennis court will not be thwarted by a simple padlock. The one I encountered last weekend is a perfect illustration of this fallacy. The lock could be cut with bolt cutters. In fact, the lock would be easier to cut than the chain. Alternatively, this particular fence is held to the posts using bolts that can be removed from the exterior of the courts. Anyone with a crescent wrench could unscrew the bolts and roll the fence aside for access to the court. The absolute easiest way to gain access to the courts is to simply pick the lock. It is trivially easy to do that.
I own a set of lock picking tools and can usually open a padlock in a minute or two. It is not an uncommon skill among computer security professionals. Lock picking is frequently used as an object lesson in how ineffective some standard and accepted security measures are in practice. There are people in my orbit at work who have a set of lock cores on their desk that are regularly opened and closed as fidget toys during meetings and phone conversations.
I personally would never pick a lock that I did not have the owner’s permission to open. Doing so would be breaking and entering and most definitely illegal. Padlocks are only effective at stopping law abiding citizens. Someone intent on vandalizing a tennis court does not fit into the constraints of law abiding.
The only thing a padlock on a tennis court does is to prevent people from playing tennis. It makes no sense to have beautiful tennis courts and no one who plays to actually use them.
