Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Beamed Sonic Advertising Is Coming

Posted by kdawson on Sat Dec 15, 2007 02:57 PM
from the told-you-i-was-hearing-voices dept.
newtley writes in with a story from Ad Age a few days back. "Advertisers are determined to get into your head by one means or another, and Holosonic Research Labs has found yet another way of invading your privacy in the name of forcing you pay attention. You're walking down a street in New York when all of a sudden, a woman's voice whispers 'Who's that? Who's There?' No, you weren't having a psychotic episode; you were being subjected without your permission to 'sound in a narrow beam, just like light.' It was coming at you from a rooftop speaker seven stories up."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Pandora's box (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones (18351) * on Saturday December 15 2007, @02:58PM (#21710646) Homepage Journal
    It makes one wonder about the concept of graffit... The process (usually illegal) of drawing symbols, images or words on private or public surfaces without permission. This really, is the process of using sonic graffiti that I can imagine would be readily open to hacking, sonic tagging and sonic vandalism. Of course this opens up all sorts of questions as well: What sorts of messages are appropriate to beam into someone's awareness? What about inappropriate messages? How about unintended consequences when someone with paranoid schizophrenia encounters these messages? What are the legal implications if someone else targets the same area with a different sonic message than the one intended by the advertiser?

    Personally, I find this advertising practice offensive and a little ignorant of where the possibilities may lead to. Furthermore, I am disappointed that A&E television would engage in this sort of thing, but A&E has been sliding down the slippery slope into crass, base appeal lately, attempting to go for shock factor at the expense of cultural sophistication. Back on topic: Would the advertiser consider it offensive if their message was sonically blocked via interfering sound waves? Would they consider someone else beaming messages into the same "acoustic space" unfair competition? Would they consider it vandalism? What are the liabilities if in the very unlikely possibility, a paranoid schizophrenic were to become violent in response to such messages? (note: only a very small percentage of paranoid schizophrenic patients are outwardly violent)

    If I lived in NYC, this would be a call to me for a little social experimentation with A&Es advertising campaign. But beyond that, think about the possibilities for social filtering, or even the surreptitious delivery of information, allowing the legal (or illegal) routing of people, goods and supplies via temporally discrete windows of sonic delivery.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:19PM (#21710868)
      Imagine if a group of atheists put one of these devices near the entrance to a church. They could beam messages to the congregation as they enter and leave the church. Imagine the outburst that messages such as, "This is God. Intelligent Design is for retards." and "This is God. I know you touch yourself." would lead to!

        • by cayenne8 (626475) on Saturday December 15 2007, @04:58PM (#21711706) Homepage Journal
          Hmmm, looks like I'll be able to now 'accesorize' my tin foil hat, with some nifty new tin foil ear plugs!!
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            In my area (eastern PA) there is discussion in some counties about banning the new LED type billboards as they believe they will distract motorists.

            The LED strobes on school buses, trash trucks, and all manner of construction worker pickup trucks are very distracting to me. Even from a long distance away, they drag my eyes away from what I *should* be paying attention to: the vehicles and pedestrians near and ahead of me.

          • Re:Pandora's box (Score:5, Interesting)

            by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) on Saturday December 15 2007, @08:00PM (#21713032) Homepage Journal

            In my area (eastern PA) there is discussion in some counties about banning the new LED type billboards as they believe they will distract motorists.

            As they believe they will? I suggest they drive up I-95N between the Delaware border and rt 476 during any time in which there is a medium level of traffic. There is a very large, active LED that changes advertisements every few seconds. On several occasions, I have watch traffic drop suddenly in speed from 55-70 down to 40-55, depending on the time of day (with accompanying panicked tromps on the brake pedal that is most people's first response to confusion). Now I guess that there's no proof, but the only thing in the location immediately prior to the speed drop has been that obnoxious billboard.

            Hell, it distracted me the first time (though I didn't pant my foot on the brake or even slow down) because when I saw something that was in motion as part of a sign, I thought that clearly something that was actively trying to get my attention was probably a message from DOT or something, warning of construction or traffic. Alas, no. It was an advertisement for a local radio station.

            But once a few people are dead, I'm sure they'll consider that the ridiculous thing may have been a contributing factor. Politicians are quick that way.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              In a lot of countries there are strong planning restrictions on signs, in terms of size, motion and illumination. Signs may identify and advertise but they specifically must not distract motorists. It requires a full building and planing application to get a sign approved, and even then the signs are restricted to advertising the business at the location of the sign and it is forbidden to advertise other companies (no billboards).
          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15 2007, @08:03PM (#21713052)
            If you're on the street and I stand 5 feet away and say, "hey buddy, got the time?" and you punch me in the face -

            Ah, so you've visited Scotland, then?

            • Indeed... I love drunken Scots, they remind me of sober Scots, and they all sound like Dwarves, but taller.

              Seriously, Scots are a fun bunch, whenever they're not busy trying to kiss up to international corporations or the British Crown.
  • by foobsr (693224) on Saturday December 15 2007, @02:58PM (#21710652) Homepage Journal
    ... I could imagine that this advancement of the 'art of advertising' could do some harm to people that are not so stable.

    CC.
    • by garcia (6573) on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:03PM (#21710696) Homepage
      ... I could imagine that this advancement of the 'art of advertising' could do some harm to people that are not so stable.

      I'm stable, as far as I know, and it might just cause me to fucking kill someone if I happen to hear it. Thus, I'm not so certain that it's limited to those who have fragile psyches.
        • by NickFortune (613926) on Saturday December 15 2007, @04:11PM (#21711318) Homepage

          As things go, you would be 'not stable' by definition if you can not cope with what is/will be rated 'normal' :(

          The trouble is that "stable" is a relative term, not an absolute one. "Stable" means stable in a given environment. The question we ought to consider here is how far this particular initiative is going to move the definition of stable away from the current baseline.

          The worrying thing is that stability is most likely a bell curve. Which would mean that a small shift could result in a huge increase in instability in urban populations.

          I think this is a valid cause for concern

    • by flyingsquid (813711) on Saturday December 15 2007, @04:05PM (#21711276)
      ... I could imagine that this advancement of the 'art of advertising' could do some harm to people that are not so stable.

      Yeah, these technologies ARE pretty obnoxious. All day long when I walk up and down the street, I'm getting voices in my ear and they just won't stop. I've got Safeway telling me about specials in their frozen foods section. Starbucks is telling me to buy their Cappucino. And Home Depot is constantly telling me that I've got to get a high powered rifle and take out the governor's dog so I can impress Jodi Foster, and do it NOW, NOW, NOW! And I've TRIED to make them stop, but no matter how many home improvement projects I start, Home Depot just will not relent!

      It got so bad that until I read this story, I was beginning to doubt my own sanity.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Or how about if it interferes with a blind person's navigation-by-sound? Or with a service dog who interprets it as a command, or as a threat to avoid? how long before it gets someone killed?

      As someone else points out, this is the sonic equivalent of having a penlight beamed into your eyes, with no ability to look away.

  • I doubt I'll hear it. I usually have my iPod on when I'm walking around outside.

    -jcr
  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:00PM (#21710670)
    ...for me if I encounter a device like this, is to leave and come back with a baseball bat and trash the device into pieces. This measure is clearly an invasion of privacy if I'm generous and assault if not so generous. I do not want to be bombarded by forced mind control that is advertising.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Wait until you have to wait 25 minutes (having just missed the previous bus) at 4am in light rain, under a bus shelter with an electronic advertisement that sings "118 118! 118 118! 118 118! 118 118!" constantly (it's a phone number). I can ignore a static image, I can ignore the adverts that rotate between 3 different posters, and I can ignore the LCD screens. But obnoxious singing at 4am? Yuk.

      (It was in London if anyone cares.)
  • AHA! We all knew it. We saw it coming. They laughed at us yes... YES!! Well, now THEY'LL be the ones to laugh at... ahhhhahhhahahahahhahhahaa!

    Tinfoil hat brethren, I say we unite and add tinfoil earmuffs to the wardrobe. NAY!! The WHOLE wardrobe must be tinfoil. Only then will you be SAFE FROM THIS INVASION!!

    VINDICATION IS SO SWEET!!
  • by britneys 9th husband (741556) on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:04PM (#21710712) Homepage Journal
    How long until everyone starts hearing THAT while walking down the street?
    • I'm not sure why your comment was modded 'funny' as opposed to 'insightful' -- because if it isn't stopped early, that /will/ be what happens in a few years or sooner. Best of all is the way the spokesperson justifies it: The sound isn't rattling your skull, it's not penetrating you, it's not doing anything nefarious at all. It's just like having a flashlight vs. a light bulb," he said.

      Yeah. Right. A 28,000 candlepower halogen flashlight [scientificsonline.com], shined right in my fucking eyes in the middle of a moonless nigh

  • Umm, there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN A PUBLIC LOCATION! Now that I have your attention, this is why anyone can videotape you walking down the street, record a vocal conversation on a street corner without your permission, etc.... When you are in public, you do not have any expectation of privacy.

    I hate the paranoia that creeps into slashdot....
    • This really is not about privacy. If I am in public and an advertising in playing, I can generally avoid or ignore that ad. Having it beamed to my ear directly is a nuisance I cannot escape.
        • by phoenix321 (734987) * on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:35PM (#21711024)
          It surely is an invasion of privacy, and human dignity, by the way. Being watched and videotaped is a passive invasion of privacy and unavoidable from a public standpoint. Being blasted with shocking audio messages from an unclear source and sharply increasing intensity is active invasion of privacy and much much worse.

          Imagine someone screaming in your ear when you least expect it. Would you say "Hey, its in public, so go on, hurt my ears"?

          I don't think so. I hate advertising as the next guy, but this is certainly a step too far. It frightens, disorients or startles unsuspecting people, it disrupts talking, endangers bikers and motorists and may cause much more mayhem than I can think.

          This IS like yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater. If this is ruled as legally acceptable advertising, expect eye-safe lasers and strobos everywhere flashing directly into your eyes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      In this case, I'd be getting shot at by what is essentially a hi-tech megaphone from an unknown location by people I most likely can't see and don't know. Honestly I think this might go beyond the scope of privacy invasion and be considered a weapon. Hearing things out of nowhere is not only confusing, but disturbing; just walking along and suddenly I'm hearing an advertisement... I don't have braces, I shouldn't have to put up with that.
    • by Alaren (682568) on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:15PM (#21710828) Homepage

      But one of the strongest arguments in favor of certain kinds of free speech is the "avert your eyes" principle. Certain semi-objectionable kinds of speech are permitted in public places because hey, if you don't like it, you don't have to look at it. If you don't want to listen to the street-preacher, fine, just walk away. But we will go ahead and tell said street preacher that he can't use a megaphone, for this very same reason.

      This "development" is just a very particularized way to create unavoidable sound--it's not "loud" in the traditional sense, but you might as well be walking past a loudspeaker. It's a nuisance and it's a violation of your right to be free from speech, even in a public place, because it circumvents the usual "avert your eyes" excuse. Local ordinances against this sort of thing would almost certainly pass Constitutional muster, so while I'm not generally in favor of more regulation, I'd encourage people to get laws against this sort of device passed in their respective communities.

      Though I am not a lawyer, and that is not legal advice, I am a law student and I did just finish a course in First Amendment law.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          You're right these are easy to avoid, let me just walk off the sidewalk onto the busy street full of stupid drivers that don't pay attention to avoid an advertisement.

          If these become popular the entire sidewalk will be filled. Heck I bet that if these work through cars then they will cover the road too. This is like littering, only harder to clean up. I suggest that people make a device like the noise canceling headphones that will beam an opposite sound wave onto the same spot.

          Imagine walking down th
  • In Soviet Russia, ...you speak into the mic?
  • Lightspeed briefs, style and comfort for the discriminating crotch!!
  • by n76lima (455808) on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:09PM (#21710758)
    Many municipalities have ordinances against intentional noise, like the ones against overly loud Car Stereos. The local ones specify a number of feet from the source as the limit for hearing the sound.

    Targeted "sonic advertising" could be construed as noise pollution, even if it has a very small foot print.

    I am not keen to see a technology like this used to interrupt one's thoughts and concentration, particularly for commercial purposes.

    A possible "good" use for it might be at street crossings to warn pedestrians of changes in the traffic lights. I am sure that other uses for the public good could be found.

    --
    Sig: A model airplane company in Montezuma IA.
  • by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:09PM (#21710766)
    How much fun would it be to beam things at politicos speaking at rallies? Confuse them and make them say things they didn't mean?

    Or, by targeting the microphone itself, just speak directly to their audience?
  • One wonders how effective this will be in a world filled with iPods. I see a stunning percentage of people wearing earbuds or bluetooth headsets in downtown public spaces. This is partly to counteract the noise of the city, and partly because I think it makes people feel safer and more connected to be able to walk through a crowd of strangers listening to their own personal soundtrack.

    I get the feeling that the general response to this kind of invasive advertising will be, "Man, that's creepy and makes my

  • What if we eventually can't distinguish sonic narrow-beam advertising from mental illness? Why does being around other people increasingly mean you're raped 24x7?
  • by LoadWB (592248) * on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:12PM (#21710804) Homepage Journal

    "The sound isn't rattling your skull, it's not penetrating you, it's not doing anything nefarious at all. It's just like having a flashlight vs. a light bulb," he said.


    It is penetrating my space purposefully and unavoidably to sell me a product that I do not want. And even if I *did* want it, I will no longer thanks to this intrusive form of advertising. And yes, it is like a flashlight: directly in my eyes from which I cannot turn away.

    No no no no no. Direct audio advertising like this is a Bad Thing(tm).
  • by Stochastism (1040102) on Saturday December 15 2007, @03:18PM (#21710862) Journal
    I was involved in a university experiment with this technology. It's very difficult to make it work well, so, all privacy annoyances aside, I'm deeply impressed on a technical level.

    It's really freaky when someone waves these ultrasonic speakers around and the sound washes over you like a spotlight. But in our experiments the sound was really tinny, just like a paranoid voice in your head ;)
  • by 3seas (184403) on Saturday December 15 2007, @04:11PM (#21711320) Homepage Journal
    ... you are shopping in a grocery store and as you go down the aisle you pass by another and after you pass you hear them say something. You turn to ask them what it was they said to you and see their hands are either free or have some package from the shelf in them. They glance at you and continue on. You did not notice the blinking blue light near their ear.

    You are standing in line to buy something and another comes up behind you in line and starts talking, you turn around an see they are on a cell phone. This doesn't stop them from standing behind you a foot away and talking really loud directed at the back you your head. All you hear is half a conversation. You mention it to them how annoying it is and they respond by saying they are not bothered by this act of theirs.

    You are in city traffic the car in front of you misses a green light but you have a meeting to be at. At the next light you are cut off and again miss the light, getting out of teh city you seem to be constantly stuck behind a car driving 10-15miles an hour slower than the speed limit while traffic in the lanes next to you is speeding by faster than you are able to change lanes. and during all of this you notice in every case the person causing teh traffic interference is on a cell phone.

    Now imagine walking down the city sidewalk and the person in front of you suddenly stops and you walk into them. Imagine walking down the sidewalk and you hear what sounds like someone talking to you and you turn to answer them and someone else walks into you. Imagine commercials where there are sirens, like the telephone or door bell commercials that fool you into answering the door or phone. Imagine having your car top down in the city and hearing such sounds.

    Are there any other ways to cause stress in our every day lives?
  • The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by damburger (981828) on Saturday December 15 2007, @04:17PM (#21711388)

    Slashdotters find this concept deeply offensive, and thereby assume it must be an invasion of privacy because thats what normally rubs them up the wrong way. That isn't it though.

    The problem is the claiming of public space for private purposes. If there were advert booths where you walked in and got some marketing blasted at you, it wouldn't be so bad, but these pricks are polluting a public space for their own asinine purposes. No, it doesn't count as free speech because corporations are not people and therefore do not have such a right. Furthermore, it isn't a petition against the government, its an annoyance to individuals.

    Be aware of the concept of public space. Its vital to civilisation but is seen by the elites as merely space the private sector hasn't got a use for. Yet.

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Saturday December 15 2007, @04:20PM (#21711418) Homepage
    It will solve itself, because intrusive ads don't work.

    Over the past few decades there's been an arms race to "cut through the clutter" with more and more novel, attention-grabbing, intrusive ads. They only work for a very short time. The first time you see an ad on a placard inside a supermarket cart, it grabs your attention. Then you tune it out. Lately the local supermarket have gone to putting ads on the floor, in some kind of tough plastic laminate. The first time you see it, it grabs your attention. Then you tune it out.

    A few years back, they had little discount-coupon vending machines hanging off the shelves, flashing bright LEDs at you. I notice they're gone now. They probably worked for a while, then people tuned them out.

    These will be a seven days' wonder, then advertisers will start studying the results, and I already know what they will find: the devices will be expensive to put in place, expensive to maintain, very effective for a short time at getting people to talk about the ads... and very ineffective at getting people to buy the product.

    What's the "unique selling proposition" here? What, exactly, is the difference between reading "Ask your dermatologist about Enbrel," hearing someone tell it to you on a TV set, or hearing it inside your head as you walk down the street?

    The unspoken assumption is that hearing the sound localized as coming from inside our heads will somehow turn it into a command hallucination and force us to obey. It won't. Not any more than "subliminal advertising" did. Not any more than using electronic echo effects, or making it sound like Darth Vader, or a "voice of God" echo effect would.
  • by morari (1080535) on Saturday December 15 2007, @04:25PM (#21711462) Journal
    If you're in New York City, then you're already fucked.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday December 15 2007, @04:46PM (#21711594) Homepage Journal
    It seems clear to me that noise laws that are currently described in terms of the dB level allowed on the street would have to be interpreted by a judge in terms of their effect on one's eardrum. So if these beamed messages appear to the listener's ear any different (eg. louder) than if they were played from a traditional speaker on the street, regardless of their power at the transmitter, then they'd be violating the law just as much as an obnoxious megaphone. Except that the beams would annoy only one person at a time, which would only mean that they wouldn't be as liable for "public nuisance" under those noise thresholds.

    So you could just sue them (if you could find them - the law really needs to require anyone doing this unsolicited to identify themselves with every message, like a traditional speaker does) under the existing noise complaint laws, if not harassment, etc. Of course, your lawyer would have to realize the physics of transmitted vs received sound power, but every lawyer reads Slashdot, right?
  • Futurama (Score:3, Funny)

    by momerath2003 (606823) * on Saturday December 15 2007, @04:47PM (#21711612) Journal
    Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 20th century?

    Fry: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and written in the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!

    (link) [futurama-madhouse.com.ar]
  • by StefanJ (88986) on Saturday December 15 2007, @05:05PM (#21711746) Homepage Journal
    If they can annoy us, we have every right to take every measure within the law to annoy them.

    Stand outside their doors at opening and closing times and shout at their employees with megaphones. Helpful, inoffensive things, like looking both ways before crossing the street and buckling up while driving.

    Use public records to find out who is responsible for ad campaigns and beam audio at their children telling them to beg mom and dad for a pony.
  • by eples (239989) on Saturday December 15 2007, @06:49PM (#21712548)
    IAANYCR (i am a nyc resident) and there's one outside my apartment. It's not 7 stories up, nor is it high tech. It's just an annoying speaker that goes off when you walk by.

    The funny thing is, I thought it was pretty stupid and so must have the high schoolers who hang out 20 feet from it each morning because they smashed the thing =) lol