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.
... 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)
...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.
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
Well, you're missing out on a whole lot more than annoying advertising.
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?
In this case, I'd be getting shot at by what is essentially a hi-tech megaphone from an unknown location by people I most likely can't see and don't know. Honestly I think this might go beyond the scope of privacy invasion and be considered a weapon. Hearing things out of nowhere is not only confusing, but disturbing; just walking along and suddenly I'm hearing an advertisement... I don't have braces, I shouldn't have to put up with that.
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
It surely is an invasion of privacy, and human dignity, by the way. Being watched and videotaped is a passive invasion of privacy and unavoidable from a public standpoint. Being blasted with shocking audio messages from an unclear source and sharply increasing intensity is active invasion of privacy and much much worse.
Imagine someone screaming in your ear when you least expect it. Would you say "Hey, its in public, so go on, hurt my ears"?
I don't think so. I hate advertising as the next guy, but this is certainly a step too far. It frightens, disorients or startles unsuspecting people, it disrupts talking, endangers bikers and motorists and may cause much more mayhem than I can think.
This IS like yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater. If this is ruled as legally acceptable advertising, expect eye-safe lasers and strobos everywhere flashing directly into your eyes.
... 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?
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?
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!
If you're in New York City, then you're already fucked.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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
I have this amazing technique to avoid getting hit by trucks. I look before I step into the street.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.