Editorial: In support of keypads

In a recent email to residents of certain dorms on campus, the University announced plans to update security throughout campus by replacing the traditional locks on dormitory doors with keypads. Beginning in the fall, this new system will allow students to open their doors with a prox along with a PIN. These doors would also automatically lock when closed and sound an alarm if the door is taped open.

The Editorial Board commends the University for this change because, if implemented correctly, this system holds immense promise in terms of preventing lockouts and making overall dormitory security more cost-effective. These keypads could drastically reduce the number of lockouts, both eliminating an enormous hassle from the lives of students and freeing Public Safety officers and financial resources for other allocations — like community policing. This system will also reduce the cost and labor associated with physically changing locks every time students permanently lose their keys; Building Services would only need to change the code through a simple electronic maneuver should a security issue arise.

Although this policy is an excellent idea, the Board suggests that the University consider several factors when implementing this plan. First, the current description of the new keypad system notes that students would need to use both their prox and a keypad code to enter their rooms. Presumably, this two-part system aims to increase security. Requiring a student to have their prox to gain entry, however, undercuts much of the increased efficiency and convenience the new system would provide. One of the most frequent problems with traditional locks is that students lose their keys or leave them inside their rooms, and they must then either walk to Building Services to get a key or call Public Safety to let them back into their rooms.

Just as many if not more students lose or forget their proxes as misplace their keys, though, so requiring a passcode and a prox would be much less convenient than installing keypads that require a passcode alone. Some might argue that having only a passcode is a security risk; however, it seems no more likely that students would be able to steal each other’s passcodes than steal each other’s keys. It would also be easier to change the code should a security issue arise than to replace the entire lock. Additionally, given that many students are incentivized to jam their doors or leave them unlocked under the current system, lest they be locked out, these new keypads, which automatically lock and prevent students from jamming them, would actually be more secure than the traditional locks. Lastly, the University should also take into account the needs of observant religious communities who might not be able to operate such machines on holy days or during religious celebrations. Preserving a traditional keyhole alongside the digital system might alleviate such issues.

Overall, this policy appears to be a step in the right direction, and by making these locks require a PIN only the University would take an enormous step toward reducing costs and removing one of the biggest nuisances from students’ lives. Princeton could be effectively rid of the lockout.