loading . . . Louvre Jewel Heist <p>I assume I don’t have to explain last week’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/19/world/europe/louvre-paris-robbery.html">Louvre jewel heist</a>. I love a good caper, and have (like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/23/opinion/louvre-heist-internet-thrill.html">many others</a>) eagerly followed the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/20/louvre-museum-robbery-thieves-stolen-jewellery">details</a>. An electric ladder to a second-floor window, an angle grinder to get into the room and the display cases, security guards there more to protect patrons than valuables—seven minutes, in and out.</p>
<p>There were <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/10/praise-louvre-heist/684677/">security lapses</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Louvre, it turns out—at least certain nooks of the ancient former palace—is something like an anopticon: a place where no one is observed. The world now knows what the four thieves (two burglars and two accomplices) realized as recently as last week: The museum’s Apollo Gallery, which housed the stolen items, was monitored by a single outdoor camera angled away from its only exterior point of entry, a balcony. In other words, a free-roaming Roomba could have provided the world’s most famous museum with more information about the interior of this space. There is no surveillance footage of the break-in...</p></blockquote> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/10/louvre-jewel-heist.html