[onoway]

Listened to a discussion the other day on the radio which I found thought provoking. It was about the use of the "mosquito" which is a small device which emits a highly irritating if not very painful noise which can only be heard by people under adult age..somewhere around 19 appears to be when it becomes inaudible apparently. It was unclear if kids under the age of about 9 can hear it or not. The school using the Mosquito was in the news as someone had vadalised IT so they were discussing whether or not to get another

This was being used in a school playground which had suffered a lot of vandalism and litter of various unhealthy sorts, and it had led to a rather dramatic and immediate drop in the incidence of both. So the person from the school was very much in favor..it was only being used between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, when the city bylaws made it illegal for anyone to be there anyway. Sounded reasonable and quite a good idea.

Then a human rights watchperson entered the discussion and it became a bit more complicated. There wasn't any argument about the need for some sort of method of dealing with the problem but.. the main premise was, is it somewhere we want to go to physically punish people for doing something we don't want them to do, AND> would this be equally acceptable if it was used vs another segment of society.

For example, what about seniors in nursing homes being given a painful electric shock whenever they did something the caregivers didnt want them to do, like tried to stay in a common room watching tv or playing cards or whatever instead of going to bed at whatever designated time the caregivers thought they should? The implications for controlling any sort of protest, such as the G-8 summit, Wallstreet or antiwar protests are clear; governments could easilly develop such things to simply stop any such protests instantly. Some might argue that would be a good thing, but surely protest is something a healthy society must be able to accommodate?


Apparently convenience stores are fairly commonly already using this technology. Although my first reaction was "what a great idea!" now I am not at all sure. It's a bit reminiscent of Tazers, which because they were supposed to be nonlethal,(turned out to be not true) have led to all sorts of abuse by police using them without justification. And all governments would love to promote the image of a population perfectly content under their administration.

[blackshoe]

The problem with stuff like this is that the existing laws are enforced irregularly, if at all. For example, in the tazer case, police who have violated existing laws against excessive force by using the gazer without justification should be sanctioned under those existing laws. They aren't. I'm not sure what the argument is for letting them off the hook, but we (as a society) do let them off. We shouldn't. Police are, or should be, subject to the same laws — and the same punishments for violating those laws — as everybody else.

As for hospice workers, or anybody else, doing similar things, the same principle applies.

[Elianna]

I guess that I would distinguish this as "active" vs. "passive".

If the school used this noise as punishment to students, I would be very much against it as an "active" punishment. For example, if they had it on in a referral room and sent students there, then I would like to see the school shut down for that.

But in the story at hand, they seem to be using it as a protective measure, in a more "passive" way. I guess I view it as an electrified fence around a farm. It (the sound) isn't being used as a "punishment" after a deed is done, but as a preventative measure to prevent bad deeds from being committed.

[onoway]

Elianna, on 2012-May-13, 15:17, said:

I guess that I would distinguish this as "active" vs. "passive".

If the school used this noise as punishment to students, I would be very much against it as an "active" punishment. For example, if they had it on in a referral room and sent students there, then I would like to see the school shut down for that.

But in the story at hand, they seem to be using it as a protective measure, in a more "passive" way. I guess I view it as an electrified fence around a farm. It (the sound) isn't being used as a "punishment" after a deed is done, but as a preventative measure to prevent bad deeds from being committed.

This is true. However, an electric fence will affect anyone who touches it. The "Mosquito" will ONLY affect youngsters, it has no effect on adults who are doing "bad deeds". It will affect ALL youngsters, whether or not they are or have any intention of doing "bad deeds".

It is a control targetting a certain demographic of society exclusively and impartially over that whole group, while being indifferent to the behaviour of anyone not in the target group. Imagine this being some sort of technology directed at another group..something which preemptively and exclusively harms women, or native Americans, or gays or any other demographic. Surely there would be an uproar?

[luke warm]

onoway, on 2012-May-13, 16:29, said:

It is a control targetting a certain demographic of society exclusively and impartially over that whole group, while being indifferent to the behaviour of anyone not in the target group. Imagine this being some sort of technology directed at another group.. native Americans, or gays or any other demographic. Surely there would be an uproar?

i thought you said it was only being used during times when it is illegal for kids to be there anyway... if that's the case, everyone it affects is, by definition, the target group (law breakers between age x and age y)

[onoway]

luke warm, on 2012-May-13, 16:37, said:

i thought you said it was only being used during times when it is illegal for kids to be there anyway... if that's the case, everyone it affects is, by definition, the target group (law breakers between age x and age y)

It is apparently illegal for ANYONE to be in the school yard during those times...any adult could be dealing drugs or doing whatever else there and he or she will be punished only if caught. OTOH a kid taking a shortcut home to avoid being late and with no intention of doing anything else will be punished. It was unclear how far out into the street this goes and whether or not a teenager on the sidewalk beside the playground would be affected.

It is perhaps noteworthy that all vandalism and litter was not stopped, only a good percentage of it, so clearly some adults are also using the playground during that time without any problems whatsoever. It is a selective technology. If it hurt everyone who was there illegally then it's more like the electric fence mentioned above, and some of the problems with its use go away.

[kenberg]

My first reaction was "This seems wrong" and after thinking about it I agree with myself on this. I also think that as a teenager I might well have taken it as a challenge even if I had previously taken no interest in the area. I have no profound view on the legality of it, and even less of a view on the social meaning of it all, I just don't like it. I recognize a practical problem here but I like to think I would find a better way to handle it.

[barmar]

I don't understand the objection just because it's selective. It would be nice if there were a way to be specific to vandals, but that's not possible. But we know from experience that teenagers have a prevalence towards this type of misbehavior, so what's wrong with deterring them? So it's not 100% effective at stopping vandalism, but since when is perfection the standard?

There may be a good reason to use technology that bypasses adults. Teachers and administrators often come early or stay late at school to get prepared or finish their work. And janitors or security guards are there during off hours. They're allowed to be on school grounds at these times, but students shouldn't be (although I can also remember staying late as a student to help out a teacher in a project). Although if they only use the device late at night, when they really expect no one to be there, this argument holds less water.

I would be more concerned about whether enough safety studies have been done. As mentioned above, one of the reasons police have been more liberal in using tazers is the belief that they're reasonably safe, but some people can have serious or lethal reactions to them. Since this sonic device is being used in non-threatening situations, it had better be extremely safe.

[Elianna]

barmar, on 2012-May-14, 09:43, said:

Although if they only use the device late at night, when they really expect no one to be there, this argument holds less water.

It says 10pm to 6am. I've been at school almost at 6am, but I don't think that most teachers will get there that early unless school starts at 7:20.

[onoway]

barmar, on 2012-May-14, 09:43, said:

I don't understand the objection just because it's selective. It would be nice if there were a way to be specific to vandals, but that's not possible. But we know from experience that teenagers have a prevalence towards this type of misbehavior, so what's wrong with deterring them? So it's not 100% effective at stopping vandalism, but since when is perfection the standard?

There may be a good reason to use technology that bypasses adults. Teachers and administrators often come early or stay late at school to get prepared or finish their work. And janitors or security guards are there during off hours. They're allowed to be on school grounds at these times, but students shouldn't be (although I can also remember staying late as a student to help out a teacher in a project). Although if they only use the device late at night, when they really expect no one to be there, this argument holds less water.

I would be more concerned about whether enough safety studies have been done. As mentioned above, one of the reasons police have been more liberal in using tazers is the belief that they're reasonably safe, but some people can have serious or lethal reactions to them. Since this sonic device is being used in non-threatening situations, it had better be extremely safe.

If an adult who may not even know about the device is with a child the child will be hurt but the adult who is responsible for the child being there won't feel a thing, but that's ok with you? You see nothing wrong in a device which will not affect an adult who might be raping and/or murdering someone and who will go unpunished unless caught, but it WILL automatically punish a youngster who is simply travelling from a to b, the only criteria being they are young? You don't see anything inherently unjust about this?

The more I think about this, the more I start to think about such things as people being forced to wear the Star of David and such like. Many simple/easy solutions turn out to be not quite so simple after all, and this now seems to me to be one of those which has unpleasant implications.

Another thought on the practical side comes to mind. If adults who have "bad deeds" on their mind learn that kids will not be in an an area because of such a device, they may decide to frequent that area more often as they are less likely to be interrupted or disturbed by random teenagers.

[mike777]

"This was being used in a school playground which had suffered a lot of vandalism and litter of various unhealthy sorts, and it had led to a rather dramatic and immediate drop in the incidence of both. So the person from the school was very much in favor..it was only being used between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, when the city bylaws made it illegal for anyone to be there anyway. Sounded reasonable and quite a good idea"


So it works, what is option two? whatever option two is, is it better?

[barmar]

Would you prefer guard dogs?

[ArtK78]

I don't see any problem, legally or ethically, with the use of the mosquito device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. I would assume that the use of the device and its effects would be prominently displayed on warning signs posted around the school yard so as to serve as a warning to minors and to adults who might be accompanied by minors who have a need to be in the school yard at those late (or early) hours.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2012-May-15, 10:30, said:

Would you prefer guard dogs?

I think what i would prefer, if we have to do something like this, is some sort of annoying feature that would be equally annoying to people of all ages. Even if most miscreants are teenagers not all of them are, so why not just set the frequency at a level that would equally annoy everyone. I assume that any objection to this new frequency, if put forth by a person my age, would be equally valid as an objection when put forth by someone my grandson's age.


Maybe we could play old Patti Page songs over a loudspeaker. How much is that doggie in the window, arf arf, the one with the waggly tail...

[Hanoi5]

kenberg, on 2012-May-16, 12:07, said:

I think what i would prefer, if we have to do something like this, is some sort of annoying feature that would be equally annoying to people of all ages.

But the dog whisperer would have no difficulty passing and doing anything!

[barmar]

What if the actual school regulation were "No minors allowed on playground after 10pm", so the deterrent matched the restriction?

[Fluffy]

kenberg, on 2012-May-16, 12:07, said:

I think what i would prefer, if we have to do something like this, is some sort of annoying feature that would be equally annoying to people of all ages. Even if most miscreants are teenagers not all of them are, so why not just set the frequency at a level that would equally annoy everyone. I assume that any objection to this new frequency, if put forth by a person my age, would be equally valid as an objection when put forth by someone my grandson's age.

I think there is a dosis of change-aversion in your thinking. Better the bad known than the unknown (spanish saying)

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2012-May-16, 13:58, said:

What if the actual school regulation were "No minors allowed on playground after 10pm", so the deterrent matched the restriction?

Well, that isn't the rule. And maybe it would be a strange rule. I can understand rules such as "no minors in bars (although I often was)", "no minors on porn sites (we had to make do with Playboy)", but "no minors on playgrounds"? I should think if the playground is closed, it is closed.

Here is a true story, going back when I was 21.
My car needed work, in fact it needed dumping and was soon dumped. But we were on our way to a movie and a cop stopped me. He really tore into me for having a date with me in such a pile a junk. I apologized and mentioned that my wife (yes, she was) and I just wanted to see a movie. That did it. No longer was I a young punk, I am a family man. The ticket book is put away, I am addressed as sir, etc. Me, I was still the same nutjob with a car on its last legs.

I understand that practical matters sometimes take precedence over abstraction, I just hate to see kids judged as guilty before they have a chance to demonstrate that they are. It happens. A lot.

Mostly my reaction was on emotion. I suppose there is some logic to it.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2012-May-16, 12:07, said:

Maybe we could play old Patti Page songs over a loudspeaker. How much is that doggie in the window, arf arf, the one with the waggly tail...

Several years ago I read about a case in Michigan where a kid was charged with violation of the city's noise pollution ordinance...blasting heavy metal stuff through his car speakers. The judge sentenced him to 3 hours in a room alone listening to Wayne Newton records.

Justice was served.

[barmar]

There's something to be said for being more vigilant against teenage offenders, since these are formative years.