UK Commissioner Seeks To Ban Ultrasonic Anti-Teen Device 552
mikesd81 points out a Times Online article that discusses the legality of the Mosquito sound device, which is used to annoy and drive off younger people with sounds that are too high-pitched for most adults to hear. We discussed how annoying this device can be a couple years ago. From Times Online:
"Sir Albert Aynsley-Green, the Children's Commissioner for England appointed to represent the views of the country's 11 million children, has set up a campaign — called Buzz Off — that is calling for the Mosquito to be banned on grounds that it infringes the rights of young people. 'These devices are indiscriminate and target all children and young people, including babies, regardless of whether they are behaving or misbehaving,' Sir Al told the BBC. 'The use of measures such as these are simply demonizing children and young people, creating a dangerous and widening divide between the young and the old.'"
Let's see if slashdot stands by it's principles (Score:2, Insightful)
But I fear we will get a shameful demonstration of human nature, making "noble" excuses to force whatever suits the individual making the excuse.
Typical. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Typical. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/britons-will-keep-on-fearing-the-worst/2008/01/13/1200159274543.html [theage.com.au]
Crime keeps decreasing in real terms, and we keep thinking it's getting worse and coming up with extreme measures to counter it.
Re:Heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
However 15kHz isn't that hard. While people do suffer from hearing loss as they age, it isn't as severe as some seem to think, or as universal. I'm over 25 and I can easily hear the tone just out of my speakers. In fact I can hear higher than that. Last time I self tested, it was about 18.5kHz where it cut off (or at least dropped sharply). Also it isn't as though your hearing will necessarily suddenly drop to zero at a certain frequency. Rather it will gradually roll off as frequencies get higher. So while teens might hear it louder, it doesn't mean that adults couldn't hear it and be annoyed, just not able to figure out what it is since it is softer to them.
Over all, it just isn't a very smart idea. You can't even limit it just to kids and, as they mentioned, what makes someone magically responsible at 25? I had a full time job and owned a house before I turned 25, I'm going to say it is ok for me to want to go to a store.
Not necessarily your ears (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of the Chil... Babies! (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't stopping theft, it is torturing babies. The worst part? If the parents are too old to hear the sound, they. have. no. clue. what. you. are. doing. to. their. kid.
I'm assuming you don't have little ones of your own. Strike that, I'm hoping you don't have little ones of your own.
Also, on a side note, this seems very stupid from a business sense. Kids grow up to be consumers, and many companies spend massive amounts to burn brand loyalties into their young impressionable minds. How quick will that noise make a massive headache a Pavlovian response to anything related to your brand.
Seems more like they're shooting themselves in the foot, not protecting themselves.
Re:Typical. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not as simple as you put it, nor is it as simple as I'll put it. The problem is that parents don't really seem to care or be able to stop this sort of thing, and schooling isn't doing the trick, either. I'm not personally familiar with the education system in the UK, but I do know that things are diminishing in North America (the US at a faster pace, as I'm told) as the trend to completely spoil children and leave them to their own devices continues to rise.
The point of any crime prevention is to keep the crime from happening to begin with (hence the name). Since the easiest, most simple and fool-proof solution to that is to keep people from actually wanting to do whatever it is they're going to do, it's best to do it that way. Beating them back with a stick, putting buzzers that operate at a certain frequency on the side of the building, or any other method is a stopgap, short-term solution to a more vast problem, and considering that it targets innocent youths as well as children and infants, along with a certain percentage of adults, I find the concept to be atrocious. If you're of the belief that all people under a certain age are irresponsible ruffians, then you're no different than the ones you're trying to "defend" yourself against. Not to mention that any youth can go out and buy earplugs, or listen to an MP3 player, and be blissfully unaware of the noise here; Plus, if what you're saying is true, then why can't they just take the time to go smash the place up and grab what they can, anyway? These things don't actively repel kids, they annoy them gradually. Like one person said, it's like getting up and going in the basement while your alarm clock is still buzzing away. Perhaps instead of treating youths with immediate distrust and apprehension (especially with something so pathetically worthless), shop owners could, I don't know, actually mind their shops like they're supposed to. That is how they make their living, right? Or do they get paid per child flogged?
Do these businesses actively practice throwing people out of their shops, too? This sounds a lot like they're trying to alienate future customers for the sake of removing a threat posed by a portion of an entire group of people... Remember, too, that you were once a youth; How virtuous were you? If you were, then how would you like being treated this way for the actions of your peers?
You need to back off and take a good look at the situation. Directly attacking an age group is insane .
Much simpler (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, I'm 36 and I can hear all kinds of ultra high pitched stuff. So they're driving me and my money away, too.
Re:Typical. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm 32 and I can hear these things. My baby isn't causing any crime yet she can hear them and can't even tell me what's wrong. It's fuckwits like you that mean we have CCTV cameras everywhere and pay 10% of our council to fund their operators.
Fuck off and die, moral majority scum
Re:Think of the Chil... Babies! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Typical. (Score:5, Insightful)
That statement is usually based on police records, here in the UK and those are generally very low compared to reality. The reason? people just don't bother reporting most crimes because they know they'll either get no response or someone will turn up a couple of days later to take a statement. I know people who have dialled 999 when someone is being threatened with a knife and no-one has turned up. Indeed, I had a guy come at me with an axe a while back. I dialled 999 whilst backing off (fairly rapidly). They turned up 30mins later because a second caller had reported seeing the attacker drive off so they figured I was probably OK. Well, yes, sort of but by then, most witnesses had long since gone.
Last year a report came out in the UK based on interviewing people in the street to ask when was the last time they were attacked, mugged, robbed, threatened etc and the numbers that came out were 2-3 times those bandied about by the government.
That said, things are improving. In my village we have been taking part in a police/community task force and vanadalism has dropped by 70% in 6 months. We are also giving members of the public access to a police speed gun to help curb the boy racers screaming along at high speed in a narrow high street.
The sad thing is that the swarms of chav/pikey kids that hang around until all hours playing loud music, vandalising, swearing, taking drink/drugs (and these are typically kids between 12 and 16) know they are untouchable. They all know their rights and care not for their responsabilities. When the police do pick some up and take them home, the parents tell the police to f-off for interfering and turf their ferel kids back out on the streets for round 2 to keep them out their hair.
That said, it *is* a minority of kids - there are maybe 10-20 trouble makers out of perhaps 1000 kids but anything that breaks up this troublesome clump gets my vote although they then usually just find somewhere else to cause problems.
In my opinion, the biggest problem here is the (European) Human Rights Act being abused. Kids can do whatever they want with no real danger of any punishment. Even repeat offenders get away with it time after time. I know someone who had their car smashed by the neighbours 15yo kid but they have no hope of financial recompense and the kid has no itention of coughing up and knows he doesn't have to. His parents aren't legally obliged to and don't have the money anyway. They also say he is out of control and have no way to make him do a job to raise the money. Parents aren't allowed to lock them in their rooms or do anything other than give them a talking to and in many cases the parents just don't care.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
The point, though, is this: The owner of the shop whose windows are being trashed isn't in a position to change society. He installs the device to move the problem on.
Politicians, parents and teachers are the ones who can solve this, but our politics (and parenting and schools) are totally disfunctional at the moment. No one wants to talk about what the problems are and what solutions might actually work, be tested and proven. Instead it's essentially a one party system with everyone trying to be "tough on this" and "longer prison sentences for that".
Rich.
Re:Typical. (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't mean that it should be legal to treat them like animals. This kind of practice is just another example of the steady descent towards totalitarianism that the UK is heading straight for. It's probably too late already.
This is the New Labour Generation. Today's teens' first days of school were during the first days of Tony Blair's Regime.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
It is no longer Kids will be kids, kids and gangs especially are not as much a criminal element like the gangsters of the 1930's they are a pack of wild humans, they don't do crimes because of things like money and power (in a society scale) they do it for Survival, Dominance, or Acceptance amongst their group. In my mind these kids (and adults too) are wild animals who happen to be human species.
Re:Typical. (Score:4, Insightful)
I note you mention statistics. And I'd politely like to remind you that usage of statistics can point to say whatever you want. Much like the stats used to justify Speed Cameras.
I'm 38, and can hear the Mosquito. It's irritating, yes, but not moreso than I find the thumping beats in some shops that I now refuse to shop in.
By being active in the communities in the area I live in, and around, I have noticed a lot more violent behaviour in the younger demographic. Significantly more so.
The real solution to this would be to chuck the area of the 'human rights' laws that say "ooo.. Child. Can't touch.. Naughty.. No!" when they throw abuse at you (and threaten to knife you), and let people give them a solid clip round the ear, as used to happen a few decades back.
That is nicely targetted, thank you very much. It would deal with the indiscriminate nature of the Mosquito.
However, every law we have says that if you target someone who's threatening you, you are extremely likely to be picked on legally (a granny in court of swatting a kid who was vandalising a war memorial; she's on charges of assault. People who hit back to stop assaults/burglaries etc. end up in court for assault charges. A woman was assaulted in broad daylight on a street (not empty), and nobody stopped, as almost everyone is afraid of getting either stabbed, or up on charges in court).
If you think it's only stories, about five years ago, a mate of mine was stabbed and killed for intervening in a group of kids that were trying to steal a mobile from a young gal.
Friends of mine in the police force locally are really beginning to feel the crunch of it. No matter what the statistics say, hearing them talk of how the job's changed over the last few decades is scary.
I'm with the GP poster on this.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I was disciplined (in the common sesne of this word) TWICE in my whole life, yet I know what's good and what's bad and don't like doing the latter because it's just something intrinsically wrong for me. And that was explained to me when I was a kid, not beaten into my head. It can be done, it's just that most people out there should have never had children because they are unable to give proper upbringing. And disciplining won't help anything.
Re:Simple Principles. (Score:2, Insightful)
If these devices can't be located, they're the perfect solution to the problem, for the people buying them. They're not attempting to secure shopping districts but living districts. There are very few youngsters in these type of districts anyway, and, as I've said already, a certain type of youngster (hint : they beat people up over cartoons) is extremely problematic.
For some people, who aren't allowed to defend themselves or their property in any way, even by calling the police ("prison/police makes the problem worse" you know, and it's "racist" and they have the "right to face your accuser", which these youngsters do
But it's been decided by these "victims" (who just blame anyone who believes differently from them, but this isn't racism you see, it's in their holy book) : This was obviously the fault of the police, and more than 100 police officers had to be killed in revenge. Tens of thousands of cars torched
That is the problem. Now you suggest a solution (other than "kick them all out", or punishing them in any way, or attacking their convictions or political (AND religious) ideology in any way).
And if you wish to accuse me of racism and stick your head back into the sand, be my guest. I'm not alone in thinking this.
Will someone think of the adults (Score:3, Insightful)
Kids will be human (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please I knew from reading the title that this article would congeal comments of "Wah! Bad parents!". Have you ever stopped to think why the parents are so bad?
I had this debate a few days ago with a 72 year old man. I'm only 21 for the record. We were discussing a group of school children who were maybe 12 or 13 on the bus sitting down while this man and another old woman were standing. The point that I hit is how can you blame the parents when we are all the cause for their failing. Let me explain, most of us are working longer hours, kids are in daycare/school/babysitter, your mortgage just keeps growing, tax and inflation woes worrying you, savings disappearing, credit card debt and other factors. Most people with an ounce of sense or ability to earn money aren't having kids. Almost all the kids are coming out of the lowest common denominator multiplied by itself, not all, but by far the great majority. We are creating our own problem and unfortunately economics is to blame. This isn't just happening on the village level it's happening en masse in most established, post-industrial countries. We have a problem where parents can't be parents. This is the cause and unless either the middle/upper class couples start having children again or life becomes less stressful it's not going to get any better.It goes deeper than that though. I remember the key cause for generation and legal conflict from teenagers when I was one was boredom. I wasn't your generic geek who hid from everyone else at school during my teenage years, that is not to say I didn't have a horrible time at school it is just to say I associated with people most geeks would avoid. Most of us are living in suburbs or satellite towns, these are horrible breeding grounds for boredom. Kids are dead bored, the fact there is nothing to do nearby except mill with friends is the resultant of this. People get violent and abusive, both to themselves and others, when they are bored. Never underestimate the power of environmental factors on people.You argument of children's world being one of survival of the fittest is looking through the Fox News camera. You're being overly dramatic and probably ignorant of your own upbringing. Childhood is a microcosm of the larger society around them, if you wonder why they fight so much and have pecking orders and whatnot it is because the rest of us live in such an environment as well. Kids forming groups, gangs or whatever derogatory slang you want to use are merely living out the wider societies states and nations metaphors to a scale. If you want to point the finger at someone state with yourself and why you continue to live in such an inhumane, yet intrinsically human manor.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Arguably the children have quite rationally adapted to an amoral environment. The problem is that you need to make the adapt to a moral one if society isn't going to gradually decay.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the news riddled with such stories?
Why does it sell more papers?
What you really need over there is a another really juicy sex scandal to get your mind off things and give to time to reflect on the fact that real violent crime rates have dropped every year for the past 13 years.
Re:Does ANYBODY know (Score:3, Insightful)
Bars are not restaurants...where you sit down, get waited on and have a nice pleasant meal. If you're old enough to be typing here on /., chances are, you are old enough to go out to places like this, and I wasn't talking to you. Unless you are young enough to be sitting in a high chair, screaming and crying...or you aren't old enough and disciplined enough to sit in your seat, and not be wandering around the restaurant showing uninterested patrons the mushed up cracker in your hand, etc....then I wasn't speaking to not allowing you in the restaurant.
If you have very young children...there ARE place to take them out (like Chuck E Cheeses in the example I gave)....I don't expect to not have young kids acting like kids there...but, in an adult restaurant, I do. Your rights end where mine begin, and I do have the reasonable expectation to not be disturbed by screaming out of control kids.
Let's remember, this IS and adult world...not everything in it revolves around 'the children'.
Re:Simple Principles. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's not even a good business case for this. Besides hoodlums, the device will drive off mothers with babies who are your best customers. When they find out about these devices those moms are going to be very angry. Stores dumb enough to have bought these things would do well to discretely dismantle them and apologize profusely to anyone who asks about them.
1) Force frequently IS the way to solve problems. You can only avoid force when both parties in a dispute are willing to mutually forgo force, and use more diplomatic means to resolve their differences. If one party refuses to do so, then force IS the ONLY way to resolve the differences. Some people like to claim that humans are, or should be, more "civilized" than that, but sorry, that's the simple truth to it. Civilization only works when everyone acts civilized. If some people don't act civilized, then you have to resort to force to deal with them.
2) This thing about babies still doesn't present a good reason to ban this particular technology, or the use of it in stores. Instead, I can see a good argument for a law which requires stores using these anti-teen devices to plainly warn customers, with an obvious sign, that such a device may be in use. Then, customers can choose whether or not they wish to go inside this store. Some stores may not have any mothers with babies in their normal customers, and others may wish to turn off the device when such customers enter, or only turn on the device when troublesome teens enter. Instead of trying to fix everything with legislation, it would be much more civilized of us all to deal with problems on our own.
Re:Learn More History (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a moment to really think about school violence. Consider just how many students are in school and realize that when you were in school, you'd be lucky if you heard about even 0.1% of the violence that occurred around the country. These days, if any person in the country walks into any school and kills a student it becomes national news. Of course, that's just shootings.
I think there is more to it....those MASS school killings would still have made the national news even back when I was a kid....
They just didn't happen back then...not like these days. You had the U of TX sniper that was about the only one for years and years.
In recent times, Colombine, VT, IL...and a significant other number of college shootings...mass shootings.
Now, I do think yes..we do hear about things more. I wondered that about all the kidnapped and missing kids....are there more pervs and kid stalkers out there, or is it that there are at least 3-4 major 24/7 news channels, and they need something to report.
But, on the mass violence....no, it just did not happen as much. It was big news then as it is now...and I'd have heard about them.
Re:Typical. (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that because groups of teens are doing these things, that all teens are responsible for it? This is just as stupid as saying that all Muslims are terrorists because the people who hijacked the jet liners on 9/11 were Muslim. This line of thinking is insane . Do something about the cause of the rampant violence at these age groups, don't treat them all as if they're criminals. I can't think of a worse thing to do to reduce crime rates! It would drive me, if I were a youth in the UK, presented with this sort of intolerance, to violence.
As I said before, even if they are being used to prevent this sort of thing, as has been pointed out elsewhere, this is about as annoying as going into the basement and leaving your alarm clock blaring. It's not immediately noticeable, but it's annoying. If they really, really wanted to bash something in or do a smash and grab, they wouldn't care about that noise in the slightest, especially if it's an on-demand thing (which it is). In fact, it would likely cause them to become even more violent, especially given knowledge that shops are doing this specifically to clear out entire groups of people of a particular age group. Hell, I'd feel inclined to beat up a shopkeep/shop if they decided that people of my age group were unsuitable to deal with and a danger to their business. Wouldn't you?
The same things happen here, too, probably to lesser extents, as the communities around here are likely far less densely-populated than those of the UK. Again, why not just let the shopkeep do his job? Why not, I don't know, spend more time with your kids? Why not increase funding to the education system? Why not find what the source of the dissatisfaction is and pull the plug there? Hell, to stoop to your level for a minute, why not beat the living daylights directly out of those who have actually done this sort of stuff? There's no need to include every single fucking person in the god damned age group just because there are groups of teens out there who are violent. Hell, why don't you just nuke Ireland, while you're at it? Doubly so the Northern part of it. I'm sure the entire populace is IRA, anyway, right?
Seriously, what an American approach. I thought the British were better than that, and I'm sure that after this device, the useless stopgap that it is, is abolished, there will be a lot of reform to try and change this mess.