November 29, 2005 6:31 AM PST
What's the buzz? Teens can't stand it
- Related Stories
-
The 'millennials' usher in a new era
November 18, 2005 -
As teens embrace blogs, schools sound an alarm
November 15, 2005 -
Study: Teenagers favor IM over e-mail
November 10, 2005 -
Teens redefine media on their own terms
November 5, 2005
A device called the Mosquito emits a high-frequency sound meant to drive youthful troublemakers away.
The New York Times
The story "What's the buzz? Teens can't stand it" published November 29, 2005 at 6:31 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
182 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
They won't even hear the sound if their music is on. If they are talking to each other I doubt they could hear this thing also. This is probably vaporware
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://otherthingsnow.blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://otherthingsnow.blogspot.com</a>
time to time, I can attest to the fact that other sound does not
usually manage to drown out very high frequency sound. High
end sounds tend to hold prominence (if you look at a graph of
human hearing response, you'll see a clear upward trend)... so
headphones wouldn't do much to drown it out.
This device could be considered terrorism, really. It is offensive
to the senses- devices like these have been used as torture
devices. It's sort of like reaching into an individual's ears from
several feet a way and gently inserting a pin directly into their
ear drum. You much less hear high-frequency sound than feel it,
in a very painful painful way. Frankly, I'm surprised we don't
have any of these in use in Iraq already- the government has
already shown interest in sense-manipulating weapons such as
the microwave gun. This sucks.
Good thing Guffy "emitted a batlike squeak" for us, or we would have no idea how "indeed bothersome" him and his invention really are.
and that the guy had the idea while visiting a factory in London.
Been to downtown L.A. recently? We have specialized gang units who can't even get the gangs to stop hanging out and obstructing even our residential streets.
__________________________________
R.K.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/</a>
Besides, if this works as well as it says, you and your gang of 7th graders wouldn't last 15 minutes.
What if a store doesnt have any legitimate teenage customers? For that matter, what if its an office parking lot, not a retail stores lot?
Besides, if its just a annoying buzz, walking a few seconds from the the car to the front door doesnt sound like a big deal.
To scientifically design a device that irritates only a segment of population is exclusionary and perhaps illegal.
I would like to go to this store, and stand on the sidewalk. Then ask the owner to turn it off. If he does not, I would sue him.
However, on what basis do you claim it would be "perhaps illegal"? You think that somehow because it only affects people with good hearing, there's some law against just that? Or you think there's a law against the "intention" behind the device?
There is no such thing. The only proper backlash against something like this is simply to take your business elsewhere. A shop owner is within their rights to do this just as much as they would be for playing classical music.
Just go somewhere else, or try to convince the police the shop owner is breaking noise level laws.
As to your law suit, as long as the law provides for you ponying up the cash to pay the legal fees of all sides, plus a penalty to compensate for court time in a frivolous lawsuit, go right ahead. Just as long as the silly suit costs no one a penny or ounce of time.
I think that such a cigarette is an infringement on civil rights. To scientifically design a cigarette that irritates only a segment of population is exclusionary and perhaps illegal. I would like to go to a bar and ask everyone smoking to stop. If they did not, I would sue them.
How is this any less absurd?
I'm for it - it's a natural harmless deterrent - and you know if a kid comes in weraing earplugs there's a chance he's up to no good.
If I own the property and own the business, I have the right to force anyone to leave. If I wanted to use such a device, it would be my choice. Heck... if I want to prevent cell phone use in my place of business, it's my choice.
You forget, when you visit a store - you are not on public property. If they don't want you there - they can make you leave for many reasons... loitering is one of the legal reasons.
Seriously, this device only offends those it's intended to. If you don't hang out in front of the store - you don't get irritated. It's like a squeeky door or buzzing light fixture.
What the heck is it with this sueing culture! Get a life people! No wonder I don't live in the UK anymore. Full of idiots that come out with stupid comments....
I think that practice is illegal based on current anti-descrimination laws. Any child will have undue burdon put on them to enter and leave the store.
My device is discriminatory also, mostly against older people who don't like hearing their music within a one mile radius of their house :-p
What is the world coming to?
Get real, they're trying to keep kids from loitering (illegal) outside a place designed for commerce. These kids are not participating in the commerce (or at least not at a level to benefit the store owner and not at a frequency to justify the time spend in front of the store) and they're making it unpleasant for those who are.
I assure you if these kids were spending enough money the store owner would be setting up benches for them rather than trying to drive them away. They're not.
when they had nothing to do with creating it. I don't actually
appreciate focusing on any group for actions, except when the
group in question is a serious social problem.
The ultimate solution is always available - if the youngsters acted
politely and weren't deliberately obnoxious, no one would need a
deterrent.
How do you know? Rowdy adults create just as many issues with businesses than some kids. And you act as though its about ALL children, not just the problem kids.
""Sure it is designed for a specific demographic, but adults are not the ones..."
This bothers me a bit, it sounds as though if it doesn't effect you, its ok... Remember, history repeats itself, and things like this just tend to take away other luxurys we all take for granted...
about. Is it a civil right to hang out on someone else's property?
Is it a civil right to shoplift? Is it a civil right to loiter? Please.
None of this violates any civil rights and it's in Britain anyway.
Some stores in the US have played classical or opera music to
keep teens from hanging out and I think it's a good idea.
Personally, I am repulsed by most of the musak that stores play
and so wear my Ipod while shopping. Sales people don't bother
me and I can get what I want and leave. The only thing that I
think would violate anyone's civil rights is if they started playing
Micheal Bolton or McDonald. If that happened, I'm on the phone
to the ACLU pronto!
DOES NOT CHANGE BY AGE, HEARING CHANGES DUE TO USE AND
ABUSE.
Can anyone say Nobel Prize for STUPID!
As for a store potentially losing customers...maybe. But often teenage rodents hanging out will disuade other customers from going to that store.
I can envision the scenario where the shopkeeper sees a group of teens loitering and hits a button that causes buzzer to go off for a brief period.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://arbitraryt.blogspot.com/" target="_newWindow">http://arbitraryt.blogspot.com/</a>
Certain groups of teenagers can cause loss to business by hanging around out side shops causing menace just by being there. In the UK the police have little or no power to move or disperse such groups of youths. There is no loitering law so if you are a shop owner your basically run to the ground by groups of teens, who aren't the most welcoming site, hanging around outside your store smoking and drinking. Please remember you can smoke before your sixteen and drink bottles of whatever tonic wine you want if you look eighteen in the UK.
Good for Stapleton and the town of Barry for starting a fight back! Try living a small UK town: then you might realise how difficult it can be to go to a shop "up the scheme".
Why don't your shop keepers, business owners, and citizens in general in these small UK towns pass laws to give the police the authority they seem to so desperately need?
"There is no loitering law so if you are a shop owner your basically run to the ground by groups of teens..."
Once again, this is so very basic. Has anyone considered passing a loitering law?
"Try living a small UK town"
Naaa. I'll pass, not enough elbow room. ;-)
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://goneballistic.info/dayontherange.jpg" target="_newWindow">http://goneballistic.info/dayontherange.jpg</a>
The real problem is that these youths can be disruptive and defend it because its their 'civil liberties'
Since when is it someones right to be jerks and disruptive?
You don't have to be young to be able to hear higher frequencies, and I am willing to bet many of those miscreant spend too much time in clubs and with headphones on, where they might not even hear it even though they are young.
This is a stupid idea. The only way it could be a completely effective deterrent is if the noise was painful. Being uncomfortable will not stop a shoplifter or troublemaker, especially now they know about it and will be easy to avoid it.
On a more serious example, say the device is outside of a storefront, that is near a roadway. A teen drives by with the radio off, and the windows down and is all of a sudden paralyzed by this noise. They crash and kill someone. Who is at fault, the teen who was paralyzed by this unknown noise, or the 55 year old storekeeper who wanted to install this device to keep all people under 25 as far from his antiques shop as possible?
There is an alternative, however. Cruise liners have a "gun" that can output high paralyzing sounds like this. It only affects those who it is pointed at. This is a lot safer than a "general purpose" device like the mosquito.
Brandon Rusnak
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.rusnakweb.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.rusnakweb.com</a>
If this was ever used as an all purpose thing the store would be sued into bankrupcy.
Imagine driving down the road and suddenly your passenger stabs you in the knee with a knife. Now try driving. Wouldn't be too easy, would it? You have to keep your mind on driving while deeling with extreme pain from the knife. Same sort of situation.
Brandon Rusnak
with things that emit noise like that are required to give employees
ear protection.
and 2 if this is harmful then it is the teens right to sue the
institution which has put inplace the system of discrimination and
creul and unusual punishment.
you cant put us down because we are younger.
Robert
We can, however, put you down because you have no concept of
proper capitalization, or proper punctuation, or grammar. Or
spelling.
Your point may be vaild, but your presentation strips it of any
credibility. Take a little pride in the way you present yourself. Thus
endeth the lesson from an old fart.
I feel that if it keeps the doors clear for customers to come and go safely - it's fine with me. I also don't think this is discriminatory against teenagers - most teenagers are not hanging out in front of a gas station causing problems. Those that do - need to get a life, job, education... or a combination of the three.
If he was a bad parent then that would drive them so theft, drugs, and alcohol.
missing????
Also there's been a few points I feel need addressing in this discussion:
1. It's NOT illegal to loiter outside a shop for a few minutes in the UK. There should be NO measures preventing people from doing this implemented.
2. The people it affects are NOT on the shop keepers land. It is not his jurisdiction and he has no power to prevent people standing there (see point one).
Is THIS not offensive? Is what you said ANY different?
If a few white people could hear it, but it was still predominantly there to scare away black people, would it mean it WASN'T racist??