No One Should Ever Use Simplisafe, Alleges Zwirn

5818MNL most likely does not have a tamper switch because it is a recessed sensor, an intruder would not have the ability to remove a battery without triggering the sensor first.

In any case, standard design principles call for multiple, interlocking layers of security- in this case, the window contact backed up by the PIR. Even if an intruder were to bypass the contact, they would be detected by the PIR.

If the motion detectors have been programmed as "Interior Followers" and system was armed in "Stay Mode" those motion detectors would ignore the intruder. However, in the event that a battery is removed the system would most likely go into a trouble condition indicating "Loss of RF Supervision" from that sensor when it does its check-in/handshake. This may not happen fast enough to give occupants sufficient time to respond.

Last year at ISC West 2Gig showed a new DIY product to compete with SimpliSafe. I have been unable to find any information on it since then.

Jeff's doing his best to raise concerns about DIY security alarm systems which are a direct threat to traditional residential-focused integrators. As a frequent Expert Witness for the alarms industry I would expect nothing less from him.

As lead heretic in my organization I installed a SimpliSafe system to compare reliability, features and value for my own insight. Comparing what a residential alarm user needs, the ease of installation and functionality (so far) the industry is right to be scared senseless.

There is substantial pushback from residential customers now aware they don't have to be held hostage to a multi year iron clad contract to get all the features they most desire on a simple intrusion alarm. The traditional alarm industry has brought this on ourselves and I see it as having the potential to totally reshape the consumer-provider relationship.

BTW, video cameras are also now available from SimpliSafe for an additional $5/month with cloud storage available.

Perhaps Mr. Zwirn is paid by a competitor, DragonFly, take a look:

we sell alarm stuff yet Im still amazed at simplisafes business model.

How do they get away with licensing? Are they really licensed in all 50 states for central station monitoring. I know in Oklahoma its unlawful to provide central station monitoring to customers unless you are licensed with the state. Of course this state has made it utterly ridiculous and convoluted for any new company wanting to install security systems, so I am confused on how simplisafe got away with this.

Several years we provided a couple of security designs for a massive bridge security deployment utilizing mesh networking, crossline detection, motion detection, etc.  

When we went to the pre-bid RFP, they specified cheap Videofied cameras and the one dealer who was authorized at the time of course won it.  Just shook our heads and didn't bother...Even dept. of transportation entities are using DIY products to protect $4B bridges!

Although alarms and RMR and not a huge part of our income, we do offer monitoring.  I see the DIY alarm systems in the same light as DIY video systems.  Not to get lost in semantics, I don't consider DIY video to be professional surveillance.  It is, for the most part, a recorded observation system, not much more sophisticated than a video intercom system.  That sounds critical, but I don't mean it to be.  If any of you have ever ridden motorcycles, there is an old saying in the bike world...there is a seat for every rear end.  Not everyone wants or can afford a Harley or an Indian.  

Along those lines, DIY alarm systems are not professional intrusion detection systems and cannot be relied upon as such.   They are at best presence notification and in my experience, very unreliable, although not always because of the equipment itself.  

I still would maintain that most, not all but most DIY customers are not potential clients of ours.  Were it not for the reduced cost of ownership and in some cases the novelty, those consumers would not purchase a security system.   I am not loosing a lot of business to the DIY market, and if I do, it is business I likely don't want anyway.

One issue I do take exception to in the article is the mention that RMR breeds contempt.  That is without merit as written and paints with a broad brush which is typically a bad habit.  First of all, RMR is just an acronym that bean counters use.  A large portion of our customers pay annually, not monthly.  Second, monitoring does cost money the same as any other service.  Monthly payments are offered as a convenience to the customer more often than not because the potential customers cannot discipline their yearly budgets.  While there is a ton of automation in a Central Station, there are still people there and those people expect to get paid.  They provide a very necessary service in a professional manner and overwhelmingly, day in and day out they do so correctly.  Central Stations need money to do all of that.  It comes from the dealers who install and maintain the alarms.  The contracts are with the installing dealers.   They pay the Central Stations and do so monthly.  If I carry your note, I expect to be paid for that.  It is only fair.  I am not a bank (and banks charge interest too).  To have reliable equipment and services cost money and yes, in a free-market economy, the cost are always passed on the the consumer.  They have to be.  

As for lockout codes, we don't use them.  The customer owns our system (we don't offer a monthly price that includes the equipment).  I don't want a customer that does not want to be here.  You can walk away anytime you want to.  We know we have to prove ourselves every day.  I don't have a big problem with lockout codes as long as the system is not paid for.  Once payment is complete, yes, it should be unlocked - for free.  

Not every company mandates locked in contracts (we don't and I personally know a lot that don't).  The nationals tend to yes but certainly not the regionals and locals.   The contract is more often than not a legal declarative of liability limits of the parties involved.  Contracts are absolutely necessary in the litigious environment.  They also almost always explain the owners responsibility as well, and contrary to popular belief, they do have some responsibility.  

As far as millennials are concerned, this is sometimes the same generation that wants to redefine life in general; they want life on their terms as if they have figured out something we missed.  They want a job, but only on their terms, their hours etc.  They often think cable TV is social entitlement and have no issue with walking out on a job with no notice what-so-ever.  I have millennial children and I love them, but they are not always right headed.  

There is a old axium in business: (20% of your customers consume 80% of your resources).  Many business consultants will honestly tell you that you should get rid of your lowest performing customers annually.  To me, in our business model, that is the DIY'er.  You can't lose money you never had.  Just my opinions.  

To All: 

I have just been made aware of IPVM's article and the responses to same. Given that, I will be providing my responses accordingly. In the future, I trust that IPVM will notify me so that I can be aware of same in real time, since I authored the article.

Respectfully submitte

Jeffery D. Zwirn, Certified Protection Professional, Certified Fire Protection Specialist, Certified Fraud Examiner, Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners, Certified in Homeland Security-Level IV, Senior Engineering Technician Level IV Certified in Fire Protection, Certified Criminal Investigator, Master Burglar Alarm Technician

As a follow up, and once again, I wish I would have been advised of the IPVM article in real time, then I could have responded timely. In any event, I will be responding now because there is a huge disconnect between what IPVM states they found and the mandated code requirements which all equipment manufacturers are required to comply with; including and most notably, the National Electrical Code ( NEC), in that all equipment shall be listed for its intended purpose. 

Similarly many of the comments posted are also erroneous as well.

The NEC is adopted in all but three states, so in 45 states it applies and arguably it applies in the other states as well due to all of the regulations by the AHJ as we are talking in part about a "life safety system" whether it is self-contained or a system detector. Clearly, if equipment manufacturers did not have to list smoke alarms and smoke detectors they would not do so. In fact, I do not believe that you can find any smoke alarm or smoke detector available in the US that is not listed by an NRTL such as UL or ETL. If your comments are correct, which I respectfully dispute, why can we not find non-listed smoke alarms and smoke detectors? The answer is quite clear, the profusion of equipment manufacturers who design, manufacture and sell these products agree with my interpretation of the NEC and NFPA 72. In fact, NFPA 72 specifically requires what I am positing here. Once again, the listing requirement as elaborated to above follows through in the 3 states where the NEC has not been adopted.

Simpli-Safe is required to be licensed based on what they do; and subsumed in the alarm contractor licensing laws across the country are the adoption of both the NEC and NFPA 72 which AHJ's require.

The argument that the NEC does not apply is erroneous and would equate to equipment manufacturers being able to sell either a smoke alarm or smoke detector and not be required to have listed by an NRTL such as UL or ETL. In other words, the NEC applies and not just for smoke alarms, smoke detectors and CO alarms and detectors; but for all control panels.

In fact, even Radio Shack equipment from the 1980's was listed by UL. Was this by happenstance? No way. That said, the same holds true today. The information which supports my expert opinions is based on over 40 years in the alarm industry, my education, skill, knowledge, training, experience and nationally recognized peer reviewed credentials and serving on 24 UL technical committees. Furthermore, and in this matter, the wireless smoke detectors have been designed to activate their "control panel". Therefore and once again, it is an undisputed material fact that all household burglar and fire alarm control panels shall be listed for their intended purpose. Just like alarm companies, Simpli Safe is required to follow the same rules. Finally, Simpli Safe repeatedly failed to respond to the article and that in my opinion speaks volumes to the fact that what I proved after testing their product and investigating same, was technically accurate.

Stated differently, no control panel manufacturer made professionally or in a do it yourself format can sell products to the public and/or in the stream of commerce without the product being listed by an NRTL; and the Simpli-Safe control panel is not listed. Interestingly their smoke detectors are.  My article focused on the gross misrepresentations of what Simpli Safe touts, when in reality, the product is dangerous and is a misapplication of technology. Please remember I put Simpli Safe to the test of what they say their equipment is and what it does. Given that, my article, proved that they system miserably failed.  In closing, I do not care if Simpli Safe has 100,000 accounts or millions of accounts, they are still duty bound to comply with codes and standards. The foregoing opinions are held to a reasonable degree of forensic and professional certainty. More to follow.

Respectfully submitted

Jeffery D. Zwirn, President, Certified Protection Professional, Certified Fire Protection Specialist, Certified Fraud Examiner, Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners, Certified in Homeland Security-Level IV, Senior Engineering Technician Level IV Certified in Fire Protection, Certified Criminal Investigator, Master Burglar Alarm Technician

IDS Research and Development, Inc.

46 West Clinton Avenue

Tenafly, New Jersey 07670

Phone: 201-227-2559

www.alarmexpert.com

Apparently the wireless signals are unencrypted, simple google search yielded:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/simplisafe_wireless_home_alarm_system_cracked/

Unfortunately, this is but one of the serious dangers with the Simpli-Safe equipment. 

Please review my forensic findings in the article which I authored for Security Sales magazine. 

Jeffery D. Zwirn, President Zwirn Corporation

Well if supporting all regulations is the issue then I hope no one here ever took a Uber ride. In fairness I did not read every comment so if someone said this I apologize..

Greg: 

This is not a yes or no answer.

My demonstration showed how Dragonfly functioned before they were sold to Honeywell. There is no evidence that Dragonfly contained the serious defects and irregularities that Simpli Safe had at the time when I forensically examined their system, and as to the other things which I learned in my forensic study of this "alarm system". Please see the article which I authored. Furthermore, we are talking about two completely different systems, one being a wireless "alarm system" by Simpli-Safe that is not UL Listed, their system does not comply with Temporal 3 and Temporal 4 annunciation, their system does not comply with NFPA 72, and there are many other serious defects and irregularities which I identified. To date, Simpl-Safe has been completely non-responsive to what I forensically identified. At the same time, they continue to sell their products to unsuspecting families and businesses nationally. 

In other words, just because a company purchases another company, and then the new company decides to discontinue one of their product lines, does not mean that a company who continues to sell dangerous and defects products, being Simpli-Safe, is doing better than the other product. To the contrary, Simpli-Safe is putting their customers at risk to the extent that they have not corrected the serious defects and irregularities which I identified. 

ALL alarm manufacturers need to follow the same rules as to nationally recognized industry standards and practices, as to UL Standards and as to NFPA Standards. 

Are you saying that you have the audacity to support any household control panel which is not listed by an NRTL, and of which, does not comply with UL,  NFPA Standards and nationally recognized industry standards and best practices? 

Yes or No? 

Remember, what is worse than no security is a false sense of security and I forensically identified that through my investigation of Simpli-Safe products.

The foregoing opinions are held to a reasonable degree of alarm science, forensic, technical, professional and educational certainty. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jeffrey Zwirn, President- IDS Research and Development, Inc.

Sorry for replying to the wrong person.