The article is fun but the main points that make it controversial display a hint of puffery.

In the real and gritty world of housebreaking for profit, the last thing you can expect a thief to do is to pick a lock. A burglar who needs access to your living space will choose something guaranteed to get him through any door in seconds because he expects to have limited time to pack up valuables before the police arrive. This doesn't mean lock-picks: it means a crow-bar.

Lock picking is only effective (and attractive to geeks) because of its situational and symbolic value. The interest shown by the enthusiasts involved in lock-picking today is the culmination of decades of imagery involving spies, detectives and master criminals pulling out lock-picks and opening any lock one-handed in seconds. In other words, basically, only spies and fantasy-land cat-burglars need to be able to leave no trace that they've been there.

Ordinary mortals don't need these skills and this is one of the main reasons they have never developed them. Lock-picking was never a real issue in the past--when no one was understanding about it and the police enforced laws against even possessing lockpicks--and is i a reason why it isn't one now, because once you pull the lock-loving hobbyists out of the equation, you're essentially left with three classes of lock-pickers: law-enforcement people, espionage personnel and (maybe) high-end criminals.

To put that another way: anyone who really needs to know about security deficiencies in cylinder locks in order to exploit them probably has all the information and experience on the subject that they will ever need.