“A black box emitting a high pitched pulsing sound designed to deter loitering teenagers is being used in thousands of sites around Britain just a year after its launch, prompting warnings from civil liberties campaigners that it is a ‘sonic weapon’ that could be illegal.” The so-called Mosquito device emits a disagreeable though harmless noise at frequencies that can be heard by most persons younger than 25 but not by most of those older. “Liberty [a legal-rights campaign] suggests the device may fall foul of article eight of the European convention on human rights, conferring the right to a private life, or article 14 on the grounds that it is discriminatory on grounds of age. The organisation also believes it may contravene environmental health legislation – a suggestion dismissed by inventor Howard Stapleton on the ground that many devices, including cars, are louder.” (Lucy Ward, “3,300 sales and rising – ultrasonic answer to teenage gangs sets alarm bells ringing”, Guardian, Mar. 17).
UK: Teen-B-Gone noise device a human rights violation?
“A black box emitting a high pitched pulsing sound designed to deter loitering teenagers is being used in thousands of sites around Britain just a year after its launch, prompting warnings from civil liberties campaigners that it is a ‘sonic weapon’ that could be illegal.” The so-called Mosquito device emits a disagreeable though harmless noise […]
12 Comments
The real problem is that they don’t work.
There is no electronic pest control device, either ultrasonic, electromagnetic, or any combination of these, scientifically proven to repel, mitigate, irritate, kill, or otherwise effect any animal or insect to any degree that would be effective enough to justify their use. Rodents may be temporarily repelled, but they simply avoid the sound by going behind objects that deflect it. Eventually, says the Federal Trade Commission the rodents get used to it.
http://tinyurl.com/2qbhko
I don’t know if they have comparable noise ordinances in the UK as they do in the US, but I don’t see how these devices are any different than a car with a too-loud stereo. It is a double standard if young people with intact hearing can’t enjoy the same freedom from noise pollution as their elders.
Anecdotal, I know, but I’ve got a couple of those things for mice (my house has an ongoing mouse problem – I kill them, they come back, lather rinse, repeat – I’m wondering if there’s an untreated infestation somewhere nearby), and the one in the kitchen has worked like a charm for at least a year now, while the one in the living room has been only somewhat effective (they completely avoid that area of the room, though).
In summary, I believe the point about the furniture, but, barring that, it certainly seems HIGHLY effective to me (and it doesn’t even bother my dogs).
I actually don’t know how you’d regulate these things (in the states – England is the country that said “wanted” posters violated the criminals rights, among other inanities), at least for private usage – I can run my stereo however I’d like on my own property, as long as I’m not bothering you on yours.
OSHA decibel limits would quash the things here. Whether the frequency is audible or not, workplace rules would limit the sound intensity to levels that would be not particularly offensive even to teens.
Also there is a terrible liability time bomb waiting to happen. Surely lawyers have thought of this already. All of the teens and twentysomethings will loose this high frequency hearing as a natural part of the aging process. Test their hearing now, have them document their loitering in front of these storefronts over a few year period, then retest their hearing and voila, uncontestable documentation of hearing loss, and sound levels exceeding legislated standards. Instant open and shut tort.
Teen repellent? I’d call that a humanitarian breakthrough!
I’ve heard of blaring classical music over loudspeakers to keep them away – maybe that’s a nicer solution. And very effective.
If this is designed to target a chosen demographic, without any consideration of actions taken by specific members, it sure seems like a human rights violation to me.
The core assumption is that young people, because they are young people, must always be up to no good; this is no more valid than an assumption that African-Americans are up to no good or that unaccompanied women are prostitutes.
I earnestly wish that about 99.9% of trial lawyers would shut up; however, I have to say that this is a valid concern.
A human rights violation? Aren’t we being just a little too melodramatic? Next I expect people to charge that it violates the Geneva Conventions. I guess the next time I pull up to a gas station and have to listen to that annoying hip hop music when I am pumping gas I should complain to the human rights commission.
“OSHA decibel limits would quash the things here.”
Only in workplaces, and even then only in certain cases.
Your second point (that hearing loss occurs naturally, but could be sued over anyway) is the more ridiculous (and yet true) one. Everyone acknowledges that the hearing loss happens anyway, yet I would be surprised if such a lawsuit didn’t generate money.
“Your second point (that hearing loss occurs naturally, but could be sued over anyway) is the more ridiculous (and yet true) one. Everyone acknowledges that the hearing loss happens anyway, yet I would be surprised if such a lawsuit didn’t generate money.”
Some part of hearing loss might be inevitable, but part of it is also preventable. If a sound causes premature damage, does it matter whether or not eventual hearing loss is inevitable? If I lose my hearing at an accelerated 30 rather than a natural 70, how is that ‘natural’? You’ve only got one pair of ears; no one else has the right to damage them.
I lived next to skateboard punks that woke up at midnight, loudly played rap music, and cursed at each other, from that time on.
I would leave my computer speakers against the wall, click “repeat” and blast Perry Como CD during the day, as they slept. “Catch a Falling Star and …”
Gone in two weeks. I may have discriminated, and committed a crime against humanity.
I get the feeling that most of the comments are by people who couldn’t hear the sound themselves, and are presuming something that drives teenagers away through volume. This isn’t the case, the device is not so loud, however it is extremely irritating – imagine a constantly buzzing insect.
The actual volume is well within internationally accepted safe levels, so isn’t going to be causing injury.
The main place I can see there being a problem is when someone mounts one on their house and their neighbours’ children are affected by it (yes, here in ol’ England some houses don’t even have double glazing!). Leaving the neighbours able to involve the local council under noise pollution regulations.