How burglars really operate: Michael Bübl on burglary prevention and a false sense of security

There was no single specific reason. Rather, this book of answers developed over the years, and it is urgently needed, because the question I am asked most often is: how do burglars get into a house, or how do burglars actually operate? As a rule, that question is either not answered at all or is dealt with evasively. People are afraid of copycats and try to conceal particularly effective methods. Future victims of those methods are accepted as collateral damage, even though better information could have prevented it.

It is not intended to be a guide for offenders. It is meant to inform readers and make hard-to-access knowledge available to them. There is no shortage of information and books about burglary prevention, but nobody reads them because they approach the subject from the wrong direction. In principle, all those books and consultations are about upgrading security and selling products. My book is different. I do not want to sell anything; I want to educate people about a false sense of security. A striking title helps with that.

Offenders’ knowledge comes from offenders! My work, and the contact and conversations with the police and other institutions that come with it, can be compared with a course of study. As a specialized master locksmith, you are often the first professional at the scene and are confronted almost daily with burglars’ modi operandi. In this way I have become familiar with many different approaches, mainly successful ones. An offender usually knows only one or two techniques; a master locksmith who is called to many burglary scenes may know a hundred.

I draw no line and I oppose any form of censorship. Knowledge should be accessible to everyone, even when it is sensitive knowledge, such as burglary techniques. Someone already possesses that knowledge, and in most cases it is criminals. If a lock has a vulnerability, the homeowner should be the first person to be told about it. Unfortunately, the locksmith industry works differently from the IT sector. There, companies pay bounties to hackers who discover vulnerabilities or back doors. If that were the case in my industry, I would be even richer :-)

Victims are not told that the cause is not simply inadequate burglary protection, but also social injustice. We have reached an extremely high level of protection today, yet burglaries are not becoming less common. We will not be able to eradicate this offense for as long as injustice and poverty exist on this scale. A very large number of burglaries are committed because the offenders are in need, some of them in genuine need, requiring a few euros for food or rent. They have no other option left than to steal or commit burglary in order not to be completely ruined. The damage and costs caused by these offenders are many times higher than the cost of a small amount of financial support from the state.

The most persistent misconception is the belief that there is only “one” type of burglar, together with a general lack of knowledge about the offense. Burglary is actually one of the most varied crimes of all. From teenage adventure burglars to professional “one-job” offenders, there are a hundred different motives. Yet most victims are so confined by their own social world and so shaped or constrained in their thinking by their social class that they neither want to nor can imagine why someone might burgle a property. One burglar commits the offense for a few euros to buy food. Another wants to destroy the victim’s life by planting illegal drugs or prohibited images. The second misconception is: “If someone wants to get in, they will get in.” That may be broadly true, but you can make the task so difficult for burglars that it becomes almost impossible.

Lockpicking, electric picks and so on hardly ever appear in burglary statistics. No burglar carries probes around and picks the lock open. People see it on television and genuinely believe that this method is practical in real life. Even bump keys are only a marginal phenomenon, because you have to be well informed and properly equipped to use that method. It is unsuitable for burglars. I have no idea why people believe it. They probably also believe they can fly after watching Superman.

Some customers have practically berated me for being so much worse than the detective in Tatort. (And I am not exactly bad at opening locks.)

Nobody was bothered by the fact that I was moving conspicuously through single-family home and row-house neighborhoods and going from door to door. Apparently nobody cares when strangers are hanging around residential areas, not even in small developments where everyone really does know everyone else. It is quite shocking how little interest there is in completely unknown people. Indifference and loneliness shape our times. One woman even invited me in for a coffee; she must have been extremely lonely.

Nobody wants neighborhood wardens, but there has to be a basic level of awareness. Criminals exploit this complete indifference toward one’s neighbors and, ultimately, toward oneself. That is what I mean by a social problem.

No, I am certainly not romanticizing it. A burglar who is filmed wearing a ski mask will hardly care. But if the same burglar is seen by a neighbor, that is a different matter. The poison in our society is indifference, and that is a driving force behind criminal behavior, particularly burglary. Criminals are not afraid of cameras and alarm systems.

You can never know with one hundred per cent certainty whether a product genuinely improves security. A non-expert is best advised to use common sense. One example is to ask whether a camera can actually prevent a burglary and how easily it can be circumvented.

If, when asked how a camera can be fooled, the consumer answers, “I put on large sunglasses and pull my cap down over my face!”, then they have answered the question themselves.

It is quite simple: unlike a “normal” burglar, who avoids confrontation with the occupants, a home-invasion offender breaks in because someone is at home. By threatening or using violence, up to and including torture, the offender can increase the amount stolen many times over. Once this type of offender gets into the house, there is an immediate danger to life.

There is another type of criminal who commits a home invasion: the rapist burglar, about whom you read virtually nothing in the media. It is one of the most serious crimes of all, because the victim’s life is guaranteed to be completely destroyed forever.

Here too, I believe that such extreme offenses should not be concealed, but reported on. Only then can women be made sufficiently aware of the risk. The vast majority of women have no idea that these offenses even occur.

That is regrettable, and I am sorry to hear it. Perhaps so little is said about the resulting trauma because health insurers would then have to cover psychological care. That is only a supposition on my part, however. I personally know very few people who were not deeply affected by a burglary; everyone else has had difficulties entering their home every day for years or even decades. The only reliable way to put this terrible experience behind you is to move house. It is not easy, but in my view that is the only way to process it completely and leave it behind.

Nobody looks after the victim’s emotional well-being. Like everything in the world, a burglary is ultimately an economic factor. Everyone involved benefits from the offense except the offender and the victim. From police officers to lock manufacturers (billions of locks sold in Germany), insurers, installers, judges, lawyers, prison officers and probation officers, as well as many others, even the manufacturer of fingerprint powder makes a living from it!

Burglary as a phenomenon is estimated to generate around 50,000 jobs in Germany. That makes it quite a powerful economic sector.

I know victims who refused to report the offense because they could not see the point. “Everyone gains from it; I am the only one who loses out as the victim!”

Every job has shaped me. Burglary is and remains a crime, and burglars are and remain criminals. There is nothing to gloss over or excuse. Stealing from another person should never be treated as harmless or simply accepted. One particularly bad case involved an offender mixing rat poison into the victim’s food, sugar and flour, probably out of anger at the small amount stolen. It showed me just how far criminal intent can go.

With a few exceptions in the high-tech field, burglars’ techniques have changed very little. Windows are still mainly smashed or doors simply forced open. Everything else consists of genuine isolated cases. What has changed, however, is the way information is gathered. Social media have made it easier to spy on victims’ habits. Some offenders also use Google to plan escape routes. Naturally, that did not exist in the past. As you say, victims’ behavior has changed through and on social media. People disclose a great deal there precisely so that lots of others can see it, but are then surprised when the wrong person sees it. It does not have to be a photograph from a vacation in the Seychelles, which is not that common anyway. A post saying, “It’s that time again: our regular get-together at 7 pm tonight!” is enough. That tells the offender everything they need to know.

The basic point is that even with electronic locks, access is prevented by a physical barrier, in other words, a bolt.

Electronics are more convenient, but by no means necessarily more secure. Just think of the first generation of electronic car keys. After a brief dip, the number of stolen vehicles rose sharply. You never know whether there are “back doors”, a bug, or where the vulnerabilities in electronic locks may lie. In my experience, mechanical systems are the most secure technology. You can see that in banks. As far as I know, many insurers will only cover a heavy safe if it also has a mechanical lock.

You can, in my view, set that responsibility aside with a clear conscience. If opening tools did not exist, burglars would use a pickaxe or a screwdriver, which they do anyway. It is similar to weapons. It is the person who kills, not the weapon. If there were no pistols, murderers would use a wooden club. You cannot prevent every crime through bans.

All of the critics were wrong, because my book made the world safer. “Geheimwissen Schlüsseldienst” contributed to security because, after it was published, there was an enormous increase in sales of locks and other security products. Many colleagues thanked me for the increase in sales. Knowledge and know-how do not turn a person into an offender. Otherwise there would be millions of murderers or bank robbers; everyone knows in principle how those crimes are committed, yet almost nobody does them.

It depends on the individual officer’s initiative and judgment to continue their own training. As far as I know, there is no formal training, apart from within special units. Those officers, however, do not think much of low-damage opening techniques... Many police officers were very pleased to have the opportunity to work with me. I taught them many of the basics that can be useful in everyday police work. Kicking a door in became opening the latch with a wire. Police officers should learn the most fundamental opening methods, but they should also understand that they must not take work away from locksmiths. Appropriate training in opening techniques for police officers would be desirable and beneficial.

There is no single point. That would be too simple.

You should never believe yourself to be completely safe, because one myth is definitely false: “There is nothing worth taking at my place.”

The master locksmith’s tip, always remember: for someone who has nothing, a little can be a lot!