Slashdot Mirror
Beamed Sonic Advertising Is Coming
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."
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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
welcome our new sonic beamed overlords?
... I could imagine that this advancement of the 'art of advertising' could do some harm to people that are not so stable.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
I doubt I'll hear it. I usually have my iPod on when I'm walking around outside.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
...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.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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!!
I got a catholic block.
...before talking to me.
As usual, reality imitates the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_is_the_government
I can turn off the TV or radio, close a magazine or close my eyes, but soon the only option left will be to not go outside.
How long until everyone starts hearing THAT while walking down the street?
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
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....
In Soviet Russia, ...you speak into the mic?
Lightspeed briefs, style and comfort for the discriminating crotch!!
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
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.
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?
This is exactly like The Space Merchants by Fred Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth. The book was written many years ago as satire but sadly it is now almost completely true!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants
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 skin crawl." The only advertisers who might want that kind of reaction are horror movie producers or skin cream manufacturers. :)
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?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
This will work great when I sue them after I'm driving all calmly and suddenly, without notice, get the sh*t scared out of me by this and swirve and cause a huge accident.
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).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
They want their Ministry of Information back!
we just wear our Ipod headphones all day.. so it won't work on us! Muhahahha!
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Vee one at gee vertical bar two ay! Pee three nis hundred time larger!!
Who said that?
"Hearing voices in your head? Big Pharma has just the answer, Nonoidizan. See your Doctor today!"
... not only ban these things out of existence, but get rid of billboards too. They've been ruining perfectly good landscapes for years now.
I hardly ever see someone my age walking around with bare ears--nearly everyone listens to music while walking. So are these directed sounds going to be loud enough to cover the rap and rock that most young people listen to?
And then there are those wonderful Bose noise-canceling headphones (though they DO allow most human voices to go through). Hopefully those will keep the ads away. If not, I'm sure these ridiculous ads will spur a new line of headphones that specifically -make sure- that the ads stay out of your ears. Sound is much easier to block than...say...billboards/other visuals.
How many people really believe ads anyways? Are they REALLY that effective? I can see a few ads here and there... but the more intrusive ones really just turn me off to the company. I know I'll make a point never to buy a product that gets injected into my ears.
Actually, that's probably the best way to get these ads off the street: just tell everyone who complains about the ad to stop buying the product. Eventually, the news will filter up, and other marketing agencies (hopefully) will learn that it's not even worth implementing. Until then, noise canceling headphones + music for me.
Forgive me in advance, for the rant that shall follow. :)
So yeah, this topic seems to have been getting bounced around for years, and sooner or later, it seems inevitable that the technology will finally make its way into our culture. As regrettable as that is, I must also say that I really only see it as an extension of our already annoying and invasive society. Much more primitive technologies already exist, but since they have become a part of our collective consciousness, few people object to them. A most obvious example is loudspeakers; with those annoying fucks yelling out prices or other offers on the sidewalk (I have noticed this practice is more prevalent in some countries than others). A more subtle example would be billboards; which at this point cover virtually all of the landscape that people associate with "civilization". Yet, nobody really objects to these practices, with a few notable exceptions.
One could make the argument that the difference between the two is that one is beamed in your head, and the other surrounds it. In the case of the latter, it is possible, with an extreme degree of vigilance, to avert one's eyes from every objectionable sign cluttering the landscape. Perhaps the difference lies only in the fact that people feel somehow targeted, and therefore violated, when the advertising is being transmitted directly to them, rather than broadcast to everybody. Frankly, I also find this development disgusting, though only because it is the natural progression of a society driven by pop culture and material goods.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
...ad agency Neurotronics has developed a new means of getting consumer's attention: bashing them in the skull with a sledgehammer. "There's going to be a certain population sensitive to it," says CEO Gary Krane, "But once people see what it does and feel it for themselves, they'll see it's effective for getting attention."
"Very expensive" "Rip you off" "90% profit margin" "Unreliable"
Etc etc.
FUD works wonders.
Deleted
I don't like this way of advertising one's product, so I'm voting with my euros and I am going to not buy anything from companies that I know are using this advertising method, as far as it is practical and possible.
If it's ok for the advertisers to hit me with a concentrated beam of sound energy, then it's ok for me to hit the advertiser's speaker with a concentrated beam of kinetic energy, right?
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
This is why we have the right to bear arms. "Come to Bob's Car Mart, where-" BLAM! Of course we'll also get, "You've won 1,000,000 dollars in the Pepsi Sweepstakes! Just send a security check for $500 to: Mpondo Dwhaliki..."
This is a really bad development. Already people are far too self-absorbed, listening to a personal stereo whenever they're out and about. Crap like this will only make more people start listening to loud music as another way of escapism. And you wonder why people are anti-social ... Right.
If you want me to buy a product, advertising it in ways like this isn't going to accomplish that. In fact, it'll accomplish the exact opposite.
How effective is this against folks who are hard of hearing? It would just already clog up their wetware tubes for hearing.
Does it interfere with normal operation of hearing aids? What's the liability for bringing pain to those considered to have golden ears?
Donald Ray Moore Jr. (mindrape)
Suspected Terrorist
...tell me this is a good idea. Should I believe them?
it seems like a lot of the comments here are being made by people living in red lodge montana
folks: the place is one giant cacophony of noise and colors
frankly, i'd appreciate it if could all be squelched out and some sexy female voice was isolated in my head. i would even talk back to her, as if that behavior would stand out, what with all of the schizophrenics and suits with blue tooth headsets walking around
she wants to sell me life insurance? ok. like i said, i live in times square, and used to work at the world trade center until 9/11/01. i probably need it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I expect you will hear it. It's a collimated sound beam that vibrates the skull. Listeners describe it as seeming like a voice from inside.
Woody Norris, the inventor of the device, spent some time spooking people at the mall. He claims he always told them what he'd done afterward, but you can see how someone might abuse such a thing. Easy to convince someone they're crazy.
I'm glad the device is in Times Square. I hope as many advertisers use this as quickly as possible. Right now, only a tenth of the populace at most knows about these things. Everyone else is as vulnerable to trickery as the natives in any colonialist short story about explorers pretending to be gods.
"Johnson, show the Ugabi your flashlight again!"
Natives: "EV-ER-ED-EE! EV-ER-ED-EE!"
Once enough companies are advertising this way, it'll be more like Scooby-Doo.
"Farmer Stoutworthy was using this projector to beam a ghost onto the barn wall, and for his swamp-thing mask he used phosphorous paint."
"I would have gotten away with it too, if you meddling kids had never been to a movie theatre or had a glow-in-the-dark toy!"
Something like the AGM-88 HARM, except smaller and it goes after emitters of sound waves.
Mp3 player, simple as that.
also, wouldn't this count as noise nuisance, if I played music out of a seventh story city centre window that people could hear at street level, the cops would come and tell me to turn it down, just cos it's in a small area why should the law not apply?
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
If you're gonna put apostrophes at random places, I can put exclamation marks anywhere I want. I think that's reasonable.
What kind of countermeasures might one take? In other words, is it possible to prevent you from having to hear that crap?
Couldn't you just walk away from this? I mean it's a stationary device pointing to one area. You could start avoiding the area entirely, discovering new routes around it. If business in the area decreases from people avoiding the billboard wouldn't that encourage them to remove it? I just don't see how this is (too much) different from if the billboard was shouting the same thing to everyone. It's just beaming it in a narrow column: just walk away. I guess the confusion comes from the Slashdot writeup that makes it seem like some guy's going to be standing on the rooftop aiming the device at you, but that's not the case. If that were the case I can see the cause for alarm, but since it isn't I find the majority of the posts in here to be alarmist at best.
The article talks about a speaker ... as in one speaker. I think there's more to it than that. Generally, to focus energy requires a structure at least several times as big as the wavelength of the energy. The more you want to focus the energy, the bigger your antenna, lens or whatever. If I wanted to direct sound energy, I would probably use an array of speakers a la sonar. That way you get a large aperture and can focus the energy fairly sharply.
...
The other thing is that you almost always get side lobes. The big guy in the fifth floor apartment across the street is going to really hate your guts because he can hear it from his bedroom 24/7. If he ever finds you
Please! Then let's arrest everybody for honking their horns or even talking within earshot.
What?
This has got to the be the first time your sacred right to bear arms makes any sense..
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
"But the damned shark still looks fake."
Table-ized A.I.
yeah yeah, horrible thing nobody should do that.
But it's neat, how does it work?
... 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?
Didn't the guy who figured out this technology, win invention of the year either last year or year before?
They had talked about using it in grocery stores, so that as you looked at items it would tell you what the specials were on just the products in front of you.
I can't remember where i read that. I may have dreamed it. Can somebody confirm that i'm not totally crazy?
The summary portrays this as some terrible, dystopian technology for forced, personal advertising. If you actually read the article, the whole point of it is to limit the sound to a smaller area, as an alternative to loudspeakers which pretty much annoy the whole neighborhood. It does NOT beam a personalized message into an individual's ears - anyone in the same small area can hear the sound too.
IMHO, this is no different than ads beings played in the bus or the metro, or anywhere else for that matter.
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 the road and going from one ad to another. "...buy...zybex...ask...drunk...best...recomended...k...eel...all...hue...man's...with...a...edbull...it..." Try holding a conversation when walking down any big street with these. Currently you can direct your conversation away from other people so your not as loud to them as their conversation. These are like the annoying political advocates who barge up with loudspeakers. Heck even loudspeakers aren't allowed to be used like this.
At my church I help with a 4-5 year old class. In this class there is one kid who has a mental problem that makes him react badly to loud noises. I would hate to have him experiance these things. He would sadly end up on the ground trying to cover his ears. (noise causes extreme pain for him).
I don't preview or spellcheck.
People will start tuning out anything that isn't directed towards them. After I hear enough of this crap, like probably 1 minute's worth, I'm pretty much going to stop paying attention unless I hear my name. I give out fake names or made-up nicknames when registering for anything*, so even if they've got my name and figure out how to identify me with the device that's emitting the sound in the first place, they're still not going to get my attention. And am I really going to turn my iPod off? I've got music on just about every device I own now, I'm listening to music almost every chance I get.
Plus, look at car alarms... these things go off every 5 seconds in parking lots, nobody starts panicking or screaming, nobody calls the cops. People hear it so often now that it's just a deterrant to the crook if they get nervous enough about what they're doing, or if they take too long doing it. If people hear the alarm going silent they think "Finally!" not "What's happening now?"
See, that's kind of my point. If marketing is invasive enough, people stop paying attention and start finding ways to get the attention of advertisers off them. Instead of people putting up with advertisements and the ads having some effect on the population, instead they'll lead the population to shutting the ads out entirely.
Then the only person selling anything will be the guy who can block the ads... kinda like the autodial blocker. So brilliance all around fellows, congrats on this one.
Twinstiq, game news
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.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I knew something was up when I was walking down the street and heard "SEEEEEGAAAAAA!", then something about a fast hedgehog.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
they may get inundatet with lawsuits for harassment.
Hopefully, there will be a judge sentencing the idiots to a mandantory exposure to their crap in a prison cell for 3 hours daily. Or - even better, tied to a post on a pedestal on time square with a sign with their sentence cause around their neck.
Isn't that whole commercial advertising shit turning into an automatic subconscious rejection of that particular product? Maybe some gene will get flipped in the next generations for just that.
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.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
It gets to be more fun when they're paying attention to _who_ their beaming the sound at.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
FTA: "If you set up a loudspeaker on the top of a building, everybody's going to hear that noise. But if you're only directing that sound to a specific viewer, you're never going to hear a neighbor complaint from street vendors or pedestrians. The whole idea is to spare other people."
What the interviewee is conveniently omitting to mention is that putting a loudspeaker to blare all day in the street would be obviously illegal, so nobody is being "spared", we're just being forced to listen to advertising which is so invading that it would be illegal in normal circumstances.
Sorry.
If you're in New York City, then you're already fucked.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
This would be a great way to sell earplugs! Imagine the possibilities! For other products it might not be so good, such as hearing aids. You'd also be in trouble if your target audience was the deaf.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
AC has a point. The laws and decisions nowadays seem to favor the corporate client in these cases. I am shocked nobody has stepped up in our legislature to make it a federal crime for terrorists with spray cans &c. to impede the protected speech of billboard lessees
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Would those in-ear earphones work as a rather simple way of blocking the ad? I don't know how it works, but I'd rather listen to the worst band in the world (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=worst+band+in+the+world) than crappy intrusive advertisements.
...what could possibly go wrong?
This is a bit like throwing eggs or cream pies at VIPs. It might seem like a "harmless" way to make a point, but to the security personnel you will appear identical to an assassin and will be treated as such. Stop trying to be clever.
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?
--
make install -not war
you may need to have it serviced or replaced. it seems to have gone off line
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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)
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Perhaps the best way to show how you feel about this is to accidentally damage or otherwise incapacitate the loudspeaker in some fashion. While I'm not usually a fan of vigilante justice, it'd be worth trying to get onto the roof of that building, cutting the wires, and leaving a note saying something to the effect of "bugger off." Or hell, if you're really gutsy, just take a gun to it.
It is important that something is done in a timely fashion so other advertisers don't think this is a good idea. There is already enough visual pollution in cities from advertising, we don't need audio pollution.
I'm seeing a few ways that this kit could be put to good use, hm? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
It's not the preachers, it's the rabid rabbis.
Professor Farnsworth: It's very simple. The ad gets into your brain just like this liquid gets into this egg. He shows an egg and injects it with liquid from a syringe until the egg explodes.] Professor Farnsworth: Although, in reality, it's not liquid, but gamma radiation.
Retaliate. Get your own sonic speaker thing, pick the most obnoxious annoying painful sound you can think of (Nails on chalkboard?), and whenever you spot one of these, wait. As soon as someone approaches in the room (even if it's just sitting there and/or automatic, they must come up there at some point), blast them. Or perhaps set one up to continually bombard the window this is coming from. Or just find a way to screw up the speaker.
Ohh, I know. If they have someone up there directing it, blast them back. If not, just get your own speaker, point it at the same place, and overpower their message, either with your own or with inverse waves to theirs (though that would be rather difficult to do, if not impossible)
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.
I live around the corner from this advertisement in NYC and as soon as I walked past it for the first time, I went straight home to write A&E a letter expressing my concerns. This thing is intrusive, annoying, and ridiculous. I have a high tolerance for many things but having advertising forced into my ears in such a bizarre way is crossing the line. I shouldn't have to live in some marketing world. RIDICULOUS. To see this thing in action, youtube: 'prince street btwn mulberry and mott sts'
LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?
FRY: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree.
So surely there must be at least on Slashdot reader who's a millionaire, is annoyed by this too, and isn't the one doing it.
Please SUE them!
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I've been noticing these adverts for the last 20 years or so.... isn't everyone?
§
... like the body or the subject!)
*FILLER TEXT*
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment
I'm surprised no one has mentioned what a kick-ass fun house/horror house addition these speakers would make.
You're walking along in the dark and suddenly it sounds like someone is standing right behind you whispering sweet murderous nothings in your ear - or an animal growling - or just a "boo!".
How bout recording your group reacting to a previous scare and then broadcasting it from the direction you're heading.
There's some freaky stuff you could do with directional sound projection.
I know you can bounce it off walls too, so you could one speaker multiple times for different effects.
Pocket size.With a microphone.
I thought Schrodinger's cat was in Pandora's box !? Apparently the cat escaped by pushing the lid open.
The problem I have with this technology being used for advertising purposes is not so much the invasion of privacy issue, but rather the obvious safety issue. The key here is that people aren't expecting to hear these sounds. There is no obvious source, the sound is projected narrowly, and most of all, as an advertising medium, it fails to satisfy a basic standard of expectation--and so, used in this manner, this sort of remote sound projection is a safety hazard. We generally don't go around surprising people in the middle of the street. Such actions can cause a great deal of distress, followed by anger once the victim realizes it's a f***ing advertisement. It's entirely plausible that someone could start behaving belligerently towards other strangers, demanding to know who is whispering into his ear.
The distinction of voluntary vs. involuntary forms of communication is important but actually not quite the central problem, because many forms of visual advertising are so pervasive as to constitute a de facto involuntary, non-consensual form of communication. The real problem, in my opinion, is that this technology effectively deprives the recipient of the message from having an awareness of its source. At least, with television, radio, and print, while one may not be able to avoid these messages, at least you know where they are coming from. Should society become increasingly aware of this technology, people might come to accept it, but this leads me to ask whether we should accept it in the first place, and whether anyone, including the advertisers (who will literally go to any length to make a buck), have fully thought through the social consequences. So we're all supposed to walk around in public, allowing rooftop speakers to project voices into our heads wherever we go? What's next, retinal projection units inside your car making you see ads while you drive? Advertisers would cut their right nut off if they could invent a device that alters the minds of consumers to force them to purchase a product of their choice. Oh wait, they've already done that, it's called Britney Spears.
Here's the Holosonics device that does it, if you care. It's a cute trick of nonlinear acoustics. This thing has been around for about five years, used for niche applications like narration in musum displays. But usually at a range of about a meter or two. I'm amazed that they can make the thing work at 15-20m.
They haven't been successful in getting the cost down or the quality up. Otherwise, it would have market share in hands-free phones and computer speakers, where such directionality would be really useful.
My guess is that it will be shut down as a public nuisance in NYC.
This is nothing new and has been around for at least five years. I've actually used it in a promotional campaign for a major soft drink manufacturer. While they make it seem like only one person hears the sound is extremely focused over a distance, the truth is much less so. The sound beam does widen and from a farther distance makes it seem just like you're hearing a radio that's louder than it should be. Also, the sound beam makes whatever it hits act as a speaker. When it hits your head, you hear it clearly, but nearby will often hear it as well... coming from you!
That said, it is a lot of fun to play with but harder to execute with... oh yeah, and less invasive than it initially sounds. (no pun intended)
Sure, asshole -- let the fucking bastards fill up the public space with this shit. Then, when a cop sees me staggering down the street to avoid the thirty ad-blasters on the block, then arrests me for public drunkenness, I'll look to you to recover my legal costs.
You sniveling lickspittle bitch of the admen.
Check out the Enclosures of the late 18th and early 18th centuries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure. The human cost of these enclosures was great. People starved. Many emigrated. The public response was often violent.
The techniques here are to aim the sound by using very high frequencies, sending 2 beams, one at frequency F and another at frequency F+
where is the audible frequency. Your ear is nonlinear so you hear the difference, and the frequency F part is above audible level.
However, the frequency F part needs to be far louder than what you hear, and thus is potentially far more damaging to your ears, to allow the audible heterodyne to be heard. I doubt that noise statutes are limited to certain frequency ranges; they are probably violated by the baseband part of this system even if the audible sound is fairly quiet. Look at the specs on the gadget - 100dB - and figure this energy is getting sent into your ears, whether or not you can hear it.
Someone exposed to this (esp. repeatedly) needs to file a complaint about noise pollution and get someone with a WIDEBAND audio energy measuring device out there. Then shut the suckers down on grounds they damage hearing, just as if they were some humongous music speakers blaring at you. Since the ultrasound is in fact a fairly tightly aimed beam, the damage would tend to be greater than conventional audio speakers at such distances also.
No, you weren't having a psychotic episode;
Actually, I was...
What's that? Do what with the knives to who? OK then.
Sorry about the interruption. As I was about to say - you insensitive clod.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have problems with irritation and depression (I'm autistic) and I'd SO find people doing that and dig their lungs out with my bare hands.
If this stuff takes off, and doesn't get sued into oblivion due to the first distracted person that walks in front of a bus, I guess we will just have to walk around with our ipod on anytime we are out in public.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
http://www.sintef.no/content/page1____2740.aspx
http://www.ntnu.no/gemini/2000-06e/09_1.htm
I thought the message was "Green door".
AccountKiller
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!
Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
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
I'm a 2000 man.
So what happens when a company - or government - decides that they should beam these sounds into an area they don't want you to stay in, with a continuous and annoying sound/message that dissuades you from remaining? I can see this used to discourage loitering (ie standing around in a public space, which is perfectly legal), I can see it being used to beam political messages. How about "Vote for X" blanketing the parking lot near your polling station?
Shouldn't private companies be required to ensure that the only places they can aim these messages are also on private property? If I am walking down the sidewalk (on city land) I should be free of these messages right?
The potential for abuse is monumental in my opinion.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Much more subtle than the aforementioned rifle, not as tricky as a crossbow. There's no projectile left behind. The downside is that if you start a fire you're an arsonist.
Really, they should just update local noise ordinances to stop this. In fact, if the noise ordinance has language that refers to the distance at which the sound is audible, these devices may already be illegal.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
It's an idea with a limited market opportunity.
;)
I see a world where everyone wears noise cancellation in-ear phones. Probably also with wireless stereo so you're linked to your music, communications devices, and important outside noise (real cars honking, sirens, people, and machines in close proximity). Probably also know your friends, so it lets them through (via verified ID of their device(s)).
The earphones will simply identify and filter beamed sounds. Probably be made by the same company
Bravo. Beyond that, there is the very real psychological desire to mentally "mute" that which you do not wish to experience. This occurs visually with online advertising--as one learns where ads appear, one begins to ignore them and the space they occupy. Personally, I sometimes cannot find things on a website if they occupy a space normally habited by ads. The same is true for signs and posters and the like. People get accustomed to ignoring that which annoys them. The great danger of this new system is that, inevitably, folks would train themselves to block out the sounds of strangers and that the true cry for warning, "Hey, watch out for the bus!" or "Fire!" or "Rape!" would go unheard and unnoticed. We've learned to block out the sounds of the city and traffic and business, but should we begin to block out the sounds of humanity? If visual advertisement no longer works, would it not be as effective to repair the visual medium as it would to invade others?
If it looks like a duck, let's call it a moose.
Okay I hope this link works, ROTFLMAO, you want a million dollar idea? Hurry, these puppies would sell... I'm telling yah!
The EMF Sheild 2000 Prototype (TaDa!!!):
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/760/emfshield2000iq2.jpg
Yah that's right you know! Tinfoil hats is for sissies! Real men wear the EMF 2000 ja!
Screw noise-canceling, I think an EMP generator would be a better idea. Just fry the damn thing, let them replace it every day.
Personally I think if I were to encounter such an auditory illusion,
I would feel it within my right to do what I always do when I hear voices :
I would find the source of the noise and turn it off. Permanently.
Normally, I just hear voices when some idiot at work hasn't tuned in the radio;
so I just get on the station or turn it off if I'm in a rush.
But when I hear things coming from things that don't normally make those sounds,
I turn them off at the wall or unplug them if it won't matter being off.
Personally, I think that I would be justified in destroying the speaker as it is
a threat to my sanity and that of others. Failing that, removal from the wires.
I think it goes against health and safety laws because it implies to the listener
that they are having a psychiatric breakdown and that it is not their imagination.
Clearly, I would write to all advertisers on that show describing what that ad does
to your state of mind, and why you won't buy things from them until the ad is removed.
Secondly, write to the network and advise them of your disgust at the manipulation
of a mental illness that is bad enough for patients, let alone innocent passersby.
Thirdly, write to your local psychiatrists and advise them whenever you find this ad
technique used in your area. It may help keep normal people from the shrink.
Lastly, write to your local politicians. Tell them you don't want "crazy voices" as ads.
Yes, I am actually paranoid schizophrenic. No, I don't live in the USA.
I don't want to see normal people get mixed up with what can be a very serious illness.
And if this technology comes advertising in my country,
I will go out of my way to make it illegal.
I think most people will just find this to be too annoying to be effective. In some ways it goes along with the failure of video phones because people don't necessarily want to pick up the phone and be seen in their pajamas right after getting up out of bed.
Do You Experiment?
UNLESS, you happen to "beam" your words into my skull. If I hear you and know where you're coming, its one thing.
:) And I'll mean it too. Lets see what court can call deny me "temporary insanity" if I feel violated by your targeting me and making me feel violated.
The moment you start me questioning my sanity, or looking for Slimer, I can guarantee I'll shatter your nose and crack your jaw and claim insanity via invasive trespass into my skull
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
There are large areas of the countries where this technology will be WAY to expensive to maintain and there is no real technological way to "fix" it as far as I can tell.
You see, people where I live own these things called "firearms" - in this case namely "rifles". Most of us that own them, while not top end marksmen by any stretch of the imagination, shoot well enough to destroy these things. Not only that, but being what we refer to as "rednecks" (however, in rural areas that has a different connotation than in cities, a more appropriate term for most Slashdotter's to understand is "hillbilly" or "country") we do not take to such measures easily and, well, shooting things to destroy them isn't exactly unheard of either - sometimes just for fun let alone when something really needs it.
Our county government recently installed those nice little red light camera's to catch people who run the light, already a number of them have turned up inoperable due to a large amount of swiftly moving projectiles entering the housing and destroying the contents. Interestingly enough, they actually caught one person doing it recently and they guy hadn't ever had a ticket, just thought the dang things were an invasion of privacy and ought to be destroyed. I can't imagine the number of the intrusive devices in this article that would be shot down.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
God: Hi Kent. Have you been touching yourself?
Kent: Yes. I mean, NO!
Or an electrolaser. Just fry the thing and make it look like a lightning strike or something.
would they even be visible?
this could be both good and terrible...
I read about this technology several years ago. The really cool thing about it is that it works by taking advantage of non-linear properties of air.
It creates a very high frequency cone, which blocks in the other sound waves. I don't think you can hear the sound until it hits something, and the high frequency cone is dispersed. The key point is that normally, sound disperses in all directions, like they teach you in school. This is different. The sound is funneled.
When I first heard about this, the described possible uses were for advertising, like this, and a weapon for the military. You could launch a beam of very loud sound at your enemy, and cause them pain, or something.
So, you don't like invasive advertising? Well, brace yourself for invasive crowd control.
So a customer, for example, looking to buy laundry detergent could suddenly hear the sound of gurgling water and thus feel compelled to .... pee? Don't hospitals try to use running water sounds to get patients to pee. If someone pees in public due to one of these, could they sue? There could be unwanted consequences with something like this...
This reminds me a lot of those new gas pump TVs that play nothing but commercials. Now I hate commercials sooo much that I got rid of the TV. I get my occasional boob tube fix through netflix and netflix instant watching. No commercials. I don't listen to commercial radio. Even NPR type commercials are starting to drive me nuts. So when I pull up to the pump on my way into work in the morning, before my first caffeine fix, and I have to hear that same stupid !@#$%!@# Jack-n-the-Box commercial, I do get a little crazy. I've been thinking for weeks now how I could mute the speakers on those things without being seen on the security cameras. It's not the flickering image of the idiot tube that bugs me it's the blaring sound trying to sell me a slab of shit on a sesame seed bun.
-- QED
We have a low-impact version of this technology at the local Meijer store in West Ann Arbor / Dexter, Michigan.
;-)
Frankly, it's both cool and disturbing. Cool because it works - stand only 2 inches out of the field and the audio simply disappears. But it's no less or more disturbing than any other advertising that gets so good at targeting its message that it is focused directly and solely at YOU.
At a firm I work for, we received calendars where elements of the picture formed the first name of the recipient - think your name being written in the snow, or ants lined up on a picnic table showing your name. The surprise comes when you notice that the ad is targeted solely at you - that the elements of the picture eventually *reveal* themselves to be aimed at you. And then suddenly - suddenly - you feel just a little bit violated... as if the magician had figured out the card you selected.
Is *this* your card??!!
The problem with this advertising is that we all will eventually - and likely sooner rather than later - become immune to it. We will all be Tom Cruises blowing past ads like this in a Minority Report future.
Makin' money, makin' friends, makin' whoopee and wearin' Depends
When you hear the voice "hey, good looking, take the next door, third floor, 3001" you start understanding the potential of technology helping people. The poor persons don't have to stand on the street, in cold and rain, but they can more efficiently work inside. Or maybe if you like other good things in life "Step in, we have a whiskey tasting going, happy hour just started, and so on.."
Sorry to hear about the kid, but let's get reasonable. You can simply not use extreme cases like this to control the behavior of the rest of society. What the hell do you want -- a law to prevent anyone from causing a sound louder than a specified decibel level within fifty feet of the kid?
This is the same kind of shit used by "parents" who will drag a kid into places where the kid can experience "inappropriate" scenes or speech, just so they can push for a law to control -- or better yet, ban -- the behavior they're opposed to, on the grounds that "a child might be exposed to it."
This is the same kind of poisonous "law-making" that is being practiced by idiots in politics and law enforcement. Once they've passed a law that says registered sex offenders cannot live within a hundred yards of a school, park or other place where children might gather, they cynically rush to have maps drawn up highlighting the "forbidden zones". Then they go for immediate funding to establish "pocket parks" in the middle of any areas not already covered, so as to make sure these people can live nowhere in a county, near any minimum wage jobs they might otherwise be able to get. Nice way to rehabilitate someone, you pricks.
Stop this pansy-ass idea that the behavior of adults should always be circumscribed by what some soft-science statistics-gatherers can "prove" is "harmful to children". One size absolutely does not fit all. This horseshit that "If a child is crying, a crime has been committed" is becoming rampant in our society. So now we'll raise a generation of bedwetters who can't understand why they should ever be inconvenienced.
Corporate numbers are at: www.aetn.com/advertise
A selection of numbers: (212)210-1400, (212)210-1321, (212)210-1385, (212)210-9151, (212)210-1431, (212)210-1430, (212)-210-9096, (212)210-9786, (212)210-9115, (212)210-9160, (212)210-9119, (212)210-9072, (312)819-3322, (248)680-7154, (310)201-6020, (301)201-6060. Of course, try other extensions. Anything beginning with (212)210 should reach the bastards. The more you call, the more it costs them, and the less profitable it gets.
So... ... do I get to fight the BOSS DAEMON?
If I view the sonic formed beam as a case of sniping... and create a piece of hardware that project back and ids the beam forming speakers then BLASTS them with a SMALL LASER
Aw, you're just jealous the Voices are speaking to ME.
While this particular implementation of targeted sound is only recently practical 'in the wild' the practice isn't. Indeed in the 70's it was quite popular in museums and galleries.
Typically a long tube with a speaker on top was hung over the target area. With a bit of carpet below to absorb sound splash it is fairly easy to provide site-specific audio, typically narration or soundscapes.
For example walking up to a display of geese a viewer might also become a listener treated to the sound of their honking cries. At the next exhibit a different audio selection is offered. Because the sound is transmitted in a fairly narrow cone and largely prevented from reflecting the audio presentations don't overlap or disturb others even a few steps away.
The New York State Museum, in Albany, New York, USA used to (& might still) have a number of displays utilizing this. It can be quite effective, if a bit startling the first time it is encountered (as I recall spotlights were used to indicate 'audiospots'.)
So targeted sound is not entirely novel, just getting wider application.
A more positive commercial use could be in music stores. Stand on the blue circle to hear band A, walk over to the yellow circle to hear band B, all sans headphones or disturbing other nearby shoppers.
A public-spirited use could be at crosswalks. Instead of loud piercing noises, often poorly imitating bird sounds, an alert area could be created specifically on the walk route. Only those approaching or on a crosswalk would hear it's state, leaving those nearby but not crossing free from unnecessary noise pollution.
Indeed if handled respectfully targeted sound could augment advertising displays in a welcome, constructive, way. Stand in front of a sign for a radio station and hear it live, while not annoying those disinterested. On a subway platform sit on the purple bench to hear sponsored classical music, avoid it to be exempt.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
"The problem is the claiming of public space for private purposes."
Then I guess you'll never leave your house then? Or were you trying to imply that when you use a public space, you're using it to benefit the rest of us? In that case your fellow beings thank you for your charity.
It is actually fairly common for these things to be mounted on an automated pan-tilt platform--moving the beam actually makes a pretty interesting effect as it reflects off whatever surface it hits. I can't say if that is the case here but it is possible.
At least one study has concluded these things are basically harmless to human ears, but they do use ultrasonic sound at extremely high power levels (>150 db SPL). Acoustics in air are non-linear at this level, and by modulating the carrier, wave interference forms a "generation region" that induces audible frequencies.
By the way these are no good for music as the low cutoff is about 1khz.
Does anyone else remember the advertising in The Space Merchants, which included exactly this "straight-to-skull" messaging?
...
The hero ends up being addicted to alkaline enhanced cola, since he once had the misfortune to walk into a street audio billboard
which plays the Moke Coke subliminal message.
I feel we move closer to the world of that book every day
(R)ule in Hell or (S)erve in Heaven [R]?
Years ago, if someone was walking down the street and having a conversation with the empty air, I knew that they were crazy. Now, if someone does that, they are probably chatting on their cell phone. However, they could be crazy and I'd never know it at first glance.
Add this to the mix: invisible voices whispering in my ear as I walk down the street. So now I cannot tell if I am crazy.
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
If they're seven floors up, maybe just an umbrella or parasol would work. They might need a lining or something.
Well, we could do that, but on second thought no... let's instead use this system for running creepy commercials.
Blip-Verts! Beamed directly into your head, just like in the 80's sci-fi TV series. Somehow, this makes me wonder if Max Headroom is only 20 minutes into the future...
/I wonder when the ads will start killing people at random
I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
Not having read TFA I can only guess. I've seen parabolic sound reflectors (kinda large) that operate from say a few stories away but 7 is a bit much I think. However I am aware of a technology that came out of MIT Media Lab several years ago and was initially aimed at museum displays, which IIRC used superimposed ultrasonic beams that resulted in audible sound in a given spot (and probably dogs going nuts).
I made a comment earlier about the constitutionality of banning these things on the grounds that the first amendment doesn't give you the right to a captive audience. I was hoping there'd be a lawyer/law student/someone who knows more about law than me posting who can confirm or deny this notion.
The real sad part of this is that, honestly, you wouldn't think regulation would be necessary, just like a law shouldn't be necessary to keep people from walking down the street punching strangers in the face. The idea of beaming advertising directly into people's heads is beyond the edges of common human decency and shows a complete lack of respect for people, their privacy, and the sanctity of an individual's mind. It's sad.
Adrian, Adrian Girlfriend Sarah and I went to Olive Garden for lunch Saturday.
I remembered an article from Wired Magazine a few years ago where a technology was pioneered that could trap sound within the confines of laser beams, creating a sort of sound tunnel. The idea was that a sound wave could be directed to a human ear and no one else would be able to hear it. So, the article explained, something like a vending machine could call out to specific passersby with a personalized message, without broadcasting the tailored message to unintended listeners.
Dont ask me why I remembered it at that particular momentstuff just pops up.
I started talking about how something like that would be an amazing marketing tool, and, just like in Minority Report, a store could use an automated system to welcome a patron with a specific greeting.
Sarah wasnt enthused. I hate when people try to sell me things, she said. I think thered be a lot of people whod resist it.
I wasnt so sure. I tried to argue that the beginnings of this sort of invasive approach were already here, with spam and bulk mailings, and that the evolution of this micro-macro approach to broadcastingwhere messages tailored to the individual could be sent out by the millions to greater effect, would eventually follow.
Yeah, but spam can be deleted easily. People arent going to like stores being pushy, Adrian said.
But merchants could tailor recommendations based on your likes and dislikes. Theyd know what you might want, I said.
People like their personal space. I dont think youll see that sort of thing happen any time soon.
We went on for a bit. Personally, I agreed with them. I thought it was sort of scary how invasive businesses might become, given the right approaches and technology.
However, if this country is going to stick with this capitalism thing, ever-increasing invasions of privacy to reach patrons with merchandise is inevitable.
Already stores like Kroger and Safeway use individual cards that offer discounts. What people dont realize is that these cards track what you buy, when you buy it, and match it with your personal information to create a consumer profile. When this information is entered into a large database, merchants can tweak their business to maximize profit, tweaking supply and demand based on regional preference.
Its commonplace. But why stop with just a profile that tells bulk mailers what to send you in the mail?
Why not use technology like the new Visa swipe card? Instead of scanning in a debit or credit card when paying for merchandise, a user just passes the card over a sensor strip. Bing! Done.
Why not put chips into those cards that can be read by store scanners when they enter the building? Poof, the store knows youre there. The store knows what youve purchased, and what you might be in the market for. A personalized message is played on a screen, telling you that we have some new khakis that will go with that sweater you bought last week.
I, as a businessman, no longer need to rely on unmotivated teens to push my product. Hell, I dont even need the teens. Automatic check-out stations and a security guard will do away with snooty mall teen workers.
Moreover, I could create a sort of preference profile for each user. A customer could interact with my business on my web site. I could do something like assign a color to that user, based on his or her basic set of consumer preferences (likes tweed or certain colors, for example). Then, as that card enters my store, a series of LEDs light up, highlighting the product that I think that customer might like, based on his or her past purchases (or what I want the customer to like, but that gets in the true origin of cool doesnt it?). Those highlights, coupled with my personalized greeting, allows me to intimately connect with my customer, providing a relationship where the customer gets recommendations to make him or her look better, in exchange for store loyalty.
Hell, I
There are already noise laws. And how the hell can advertisements be compared to living people? No one suffers if you don't allow ads. What I hate is that these aren't visible. This kid knows to avoid crowds and large speakers. These things are basically invisible from street view.
I don't preview or spellcheck.
The danger with this advertising is its extreme invasion of privacy, to the point that it subverts individual free will in how people have no choice but to hear it. In other advertising forms, people can ignore it or not look at it, largely because it's not so close or invasive to them as to be imposing. In the case of a person coming up to people and trying to market a product, they can always turn the person away. With holosonic advertising, there is no way to avoid it and no way for people to instate their choice of privacy against it.
The reason they don't use a loud speaker isn't because they're concerned with annoying the general public in the area. It's because they don't want a ticket from the local 5-O for violating a city noise ordinance.
So, if the beam could be measured with decibel meter and found to exceed the limit, problem solved. If not, then just wait a month for a new city ordinance to be passed once the advertising becomes prevalent in your area.
Of course, if and what specific restrictions are implemented will vary between municipalities. The inevitable whining from the ad companies about 1st Amendment issues will come. Then they can take it to federal court, spend lots of money, and lose. And lose they will.LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?
FRY: Well, sure, but not in sonic advertising. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in sonic advertising, no sirree.
This is a really bad technology if used without permission of the listener. What about the effect on babies and young children? Has this been tested before subjecting everyone to it? I can choose not to read a billboard but this is terrible. Plus the brainwashing, propaganda that this could be used for is mind numbing.
We czn easily put an end to this nonsense. When halosonic addvertising is near a location near you, boycott the location! Avoid it at all costs. The businesses located there would sue whoever is using it for advertising it and eventually it will removed.
I'm afraid you are wrong as to corporations and free speech. Legally (IANAL) corporations ARE people and enjoy pretty much all the same rights as individuals. They also have less of the drawbacks such as possible imprisonment or certain death (eventually). Even if a corp. were to declare bankruptcy, they are most often bought by another corp. and so live on. I contend that a change in the laws to revoke this "personhood" is what is needed to end many of the abuses inflicted by corporations on the public (i.e. REAL people). Check out [http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/]. In another vein, the fact that in many cases governments (and their representatives) are immune from lawsuits is also a problem. Imagine how much excessive police violence would be reduced if the individual officer was liable to a personal lawsuit. How much would toxic pollution be reduced if the corporate officer who ordered it or the bureaucrat who approved it were personally liable.
Someone writes "boycott the location"; hell, no. Look around, find where it's coming from, go into the building, find the perp, and break the damn thing over their head.
*Then* call the cops, and charge *them* with assault, and you acted in self-defense.
mark
If this caught on I reckon a fair few of us would take chalk (or a spray can) with us and mark out the problem areas as and when we found them - to warn others where NOT to stand to avoid such intrusive devices.
It sounds like it's enough to scare people as badly as creeping up to them and shouting "boo!" - so a few lawsuits after heart attacks should hopefully take care of it.
If I ever hear on of these ear-dildoes directed at me, I don't care what errand I am on. I will stop, find the fucking thing, and destroy it. Even if I have to scale a nearby building. Then maybe ship the wreckage back to the manufacturer, in a box filled with faeces, as a statement.
Saunders' second story in In Persuasion Nation does a good job imagining what New York will be like when advertisers fully have their way with the city.
I can see this technology being easily made bannable or at least highly restricted, if the range is good and people start using it on public figures and influential individuals.
The worst-case scenario is that the technology becomes illegal for anyone except approved corporations to use, which means the politicians and executives don't have to experience it any more but the rest of us get bombarded every day.
The First Amendment does not apply to these things any more than it would protect a kidnapper who gives the excuse "I just wanted to talk to her." You cannot legally force others to listen to you. If you want me to listen to what you say, you must say something that is interesting to me. Advertising might not cut it. Tough luck.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..