Slashdot Mirror


Britain Bringing Out 'Sonic Gun' For Olympics Security

skipkent writes with news that Britain is planning to use high-tech, non-lethal sonic weapons to provide security at the Olympics this summer. The Ministry of Defense says they intend to use the devices primarily as giant loudspeakers. But if they find themselves in need of a way to disperse crowds, the weapons can project sound up to 150 decibels, causing physical pain within a few hundred meters. "It has been successfully used aboard ships to repel Somali pirates." The maximum range for alarms and warnings is 3km. "Police and military planners say they are preparing for a range of security threats at the Olympics including protesters trying to disrupt events and attacks using hijacked airliners."

23 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. The product is called by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Funny

    The product is called "The Who".

  2. And what if this causes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    someone to go deaf or partially deaf? Will the UK compensate someone for that life-long disability? I thought the government was suppose to protect the people, not harm them in the name of corporate interests. The more reason to boycott The Olympics this year. Thankfully I'm not in/from the UK.

  3. Really putting out the welcome mat by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The more I read about preparations, the less I want to attend.
    Sounds like it will be a lot more pleasant to watch at home.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  4. I've used the LRAD... by Crash24 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...while conducting detainee operations (prison guard) in Iraq. It's basically a five-hundred watt directional speaker shaped like a big flat disc that can play back a shrieking wave (sounds like a modulated sawtooth from what I can remember) that's so loud that you'll feel your bones rattle if it's pointed at you - even from a hundred meters away. While we usually used it as a big megaphone, the disruptive tone was really only effective in surprise or as a threat. In compounds where certain idiots used the LRAD repeatedly, the detainees eventually learned to ignore it.

    1. Re:I've used the LRAD... by Crash24 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anything that loud can cause hearing damage. It won't fuck your eardrums up like an actual shock wave from an explosion or flashbang, but standing in the beam without earplugs (we never used it for more than 30s or so at a time) sure won't help your tinnitus - my ears rang briefly after someone in my compound accidentally pointed an LRAD in my direction, but there was no lasting hearing loss. It's annoyingly loud outside the beam, but in my experience not deafeningly loud like an rock concert.

    2. Re:I've used the LRAD... by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And of course if people are planning to protest in the street, they'll take ear-plugs, which will take most of the pain and disorientation away. This will only be really effective against non-protestors.

      The take home message is that peaceful protesters anywhere in London will be subjected to experimental torture devices. Also anyone who happens to be near protesters.

    3. Re:I've used the LRAD... by Crash24 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The LRAD is hardly experimental, and I'd rather listen to it up-close-and-personal again than get pepper sprayed again. If the law enforcement types over there have any sense they won't subject peaceful protesters to this (knowing most cops, they probably will). Of course, if I were a protester I'd have a camera (or CCTV, it is London after all) on hand and be ready to capitalize on any perceived police brutality to further my cause.

    4. Re:I've used the LRAD... by Crash24 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I did a AMA on Reddit about this last year.

      It most certainly did, though I was just a guy on the ground. Bucca was a "temporary" solution that became too permanent for its own good - it was oringinally a UK POW camp set up for the invasion that was slated to be closed until the Abu Ghraib fiasco. For most of these facilities, the prisoners weren't legally prisoners but detainees that were being held until they could be sent to the Iraqi civilian courts for trial or simply released based on intelligence. By '07 most detainees' families were actually receiving stipends from the US government for lost income. A shitty situation to be in, nonetheless.

      Most of the "bum city" pictures you see were from when the camp was re-opened around '05. By the time I arrived in '07 there were permanent structures in my compound - big caravans (sheds) with industrial-sized air conditioning. During Ramadan a few of our detainees were upset that we moved known insurgents to another compound...so they burned down their caravans (rubber bullets, tear gas and LRAD definitely did not stop them from pulling that off). They loved doing this when we would re-build the caravans after a big riot...but that time around, we decided that maybe they wanted tents after all.

    5. Re:I've used the LRAD... by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The lesson from the introduction of Tasers and pepper spray is that given more choices of offensive weapons, police don't reduce the force they apply. They use weapons in more situations than they would before.

      So you won't get LRADed instead of being pepper sprayed. You'll still get pepper sprayed in situations where you would before. But in lesser situations, where previously they wouldn't have done anything, now they'll LRAD you.

      Earplugs AND a video camera are both essential equipment now.

    6. Re:I've used the LRAD... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone who's experienced some tinnitus from just going to some shows, these horrify me.

      I'm horrified about idiots being put in charge of some detainment facilities and given "non-lethal" weapons to use against the inmates.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Four Year Games by future+assassin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Athletes are considered corporate cattle with reduced rights.
    Viewers are considered potential terrorists with weapons aimed at them.

    People still watch/attend the Four Year Games because?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  6. the Olympics seems to be losing its purpose by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Olympics was supposed to be an event promoting amateur sports competition to solidify friendship and peace between nations.

    Now we have:

    1. Increasingly, highly paid professional athletes, not amateurs; and even the "amateurs" are often exceptionally well-funded and de-facto full-time athletes.

    2. National pride of the host nation, where the Olympics is supposed to show off their greatness at least as much as promote any sort of friendship between nations (admittedly, this is an old trend, at least dating back to the 1936 Berlin Olympics).

    3. Extensive commercialization of the entire event, with whole shady networks of construction/sponsorship/etc. deals, even extending to weird brand-exclusivity rules that would make it illegal for you to wear a shirt with the wrong logo.

    4. Extensive security procedures and apparatus, which makes the event as a promotion of international friendship and peace fall a bit flat... peace under the watch of heavily militarized police is a pretty empty kind of peace.

    1. Re:the Olympics seems to be losing its purpose by Freultwah · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Olympics was supposed to be an event promoting amateur sports competition to solidify friendship and peace between nations.

      In all honesty, the concept of amateur sports was originally introduced to keep out the working class. Amateur sports were to be performed by gentlemen of leisure, i.e. people with no training, thus without an advantage. Being a working joe was considered being a professional, because they got paid to train, sometimes paid to play (to compensate for having to skip work) and had an unfair advantage of being in shape. I don't know how that idea solidifies friendship and peace between nations, or within nations, come to think of it.

  7. Wow! by gman003 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The terrorists must really be loving this. They don't even have to do anything anymore to get the public terrorized - the 'security forces' are taking care of that for them! They don't even have to make half-credible bomb threats anymore - the {Ministry|Department} of Defense will just make threats up for them!

    The terrorists aren't winning. They already won.

    1. Re:Wow! by LostCluster2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sometimes the security people are the terrorists, spreading threats they make up to justify their own existing.

      --
      I'm LostCluster but I lost my password to that user. Hey Slashdot, how about helping me get it back!
    2. Re:Wow! by 1s44c · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read the OP. It's clear that we're using the word "terrorist" to refer to Muslim extremists. Stop watering down the meaning of terms. If you're going to change "terrorist" to mean "anyone who makes me scared", you might as well scrap the word all together. We have plenty of good terms to describe authoritarian governments already.

      I was using the dictionary definition which has nothing to do with Muslims at all. It refers to anyone or any group who causes terror or frightens others. The UK government is clearly doing this by arming and militarizing the police. Using the term 'terrorist' to refer to Muslim extermists and ignoring every other cause of terror or loss of freedom is missing the big picture. Muslims didn't turn the UK into a police state, the UK police did and the UK government let them. When the IRA were blowing up buildings every few months or so the UK never resorted to police state tactics and it never militarized the police.

      From dictionary.com:
      terrorist
        [ter-er-ist] Show IPA
      noun
      1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
      2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
      3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
      4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
      adjective
      5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

      terrorism
        [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
      noun
      1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
      2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
      3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
      Origin:
      1785–95; terror + -ism

  8. Re:I'll counter by davester666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You'll be shot with the 50 cal. mounted next to the sonic gun.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  9. Re:ordinary people can see the games in FTA HD by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ordinary people can see the games in FTA HD on like 24 channels so they can sit at home and not pay for tickets.

    Everyone from the UK has paid for the games and they were very expensive too.

    The ticket that are for sale are way out of the price range of normal honest working people yet the ticket prices don't even nearly cover the cost of the thing, taxpayers got soaked for the rest. The whole thing is an insane waste of money and turning London into North Korea for some misguided idea of 'security' is doubly insane.

  10. 150 db won't just cause physical pain. by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is torture being declared legal now in the UK? Because that's what this is.

    Sustained noise levels this loud will cause completely irreversible hearing damage, and the damage will only worsen with each passing second that the noise level is sustained. Even the loudest that rock concerts get is generally at about 120db or so (which even that can also problematic for sustained periods). I respect that they are trying to keep the peace here, but at what cost?

  11. Yeah, peace by jocks... please by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Olympics are a vile joke, they always have been and always will be. Didn't the nazi's hosting it? It simply going on after Munich because not a single jock wanted to give up their chance at a bit of fame? The boycots by the USSR and the USA in turn show this clearly already?

    It is only held so the rich can show off on tax-payers money they don't pay any of themselves while bankrupting a nation. Not a single event has actually helped the economy. Goes for all such events. For god sakes, the South African Soccer laugh off had the hookers hoping for extra profits. THINK about it, the average WHITE soccer fan, is he looking for a BLACK hooker? Not all soccer fans as racist hooligans you say? Indeed, so you are saying that there are nice respectable soccer fans... going to hookers?

    Brits will be paying the price for this rich men show off for decades, just as all the other nations before and new nations are lining up to pay for work shy rich boy athletes to show how they fail in modern society. Nobody without free money can afford to take part and the sports are all the sports nobody cares about. Really, stick throwing? How wonderful.

    The simplest proof how unwanted the olympics are is to ban all subsidy. Let the origanisers build their own buildings, pay rent to the nation it is hosted in, pay for their own security etc etc. They couldn't even hold it for one hour on a commercial basis. So instead it is a tax payers event for the rich while the poor have to evicted from their houses and put up with months of congestion, construction and invasion of privacy and reduction of liberty.

    Nice.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  12. Re:I'll counter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think politicians are usually stupid.

    Politicians at upper levels are highly motivated people. They have a singular focus, to further their careers... which is closely tied to money and influence. So you look at a poor/silly "remedy" for something like this and think, "that's stupid". The problem is, you're evaluating it against the stated goal.

    Figure out what the real goal is, be it the appearance of having done something high-tech to protect the people, or influence with manufacturers, or prestige among people that might be able to get you on some important committee... and then you'll usually find that it makes perfect sense.

    Even the ones that are genuinely pretty stupid are surrounded by people that aren't, and know how to use them. Otherwise they never would've made it to where they are. They just don't do stuff like this because they think they're helping in the best way possible.

  13. Exactly by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I am having to pay through my taxes to keep HMS Ocean in the Thames and half the Army on standby to protect the people who caused the financial crisis, when in a sane world we would be locking them up (along, in my doubtless undesirable opinion, with Tessa Jowell and Lord Coe who thought they would benefit from demanding this colossal waste of money). People who like football pay for football; people who like cricket pay for cricket: everybody has to pay for sham amateurs with trust funds to compete in a complete travesty of the original Olympics, a purely commercial operation in which, to make it even better, only junk food can be eaten at the performances!

    If Heironymus Bosch was still around he'd be able to paint it, but sadly Britart is on the Ship of Fools, not observing it.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  14. Re:I'll counter by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How well would a good set of earplugs or even construction style earmuffs protect against the sound of this.

    A few years ago, a neighbor who wanted to buy the duplex half I was living in tried to chase me out. The first I knew about it was coming from deep sleep to full alertness in the early hours of every morning, with my heart pounding as though I'd just been shocked awake. It was devastating to my sleep patterns.

    The first few times it happened, I had no idea what was happening. I thought I had some medical or psychiatric condition developing, but then one night I stayed awake but quiet until about 2am, when the wake-up trick happened. While I was awake, the jolt felt weird, but not unbearable, a little like standing near loudspeakers at a rock concert, but silent.

    I was lucky, and had a full studio of sound and electronic gear, so over the next couple of nights I identified that the pulse was ultrasonic. A bit of research led me to these things, so I bought one of the quad transducer kits to see if it was the culprit, which it was. I did some experimenting, and found that while earmuffs do attenuate the sensation a little, the "body-throb" is still disturbing. If you don't control your mind, it really does produce a sense of alarm.

    Once my neighbor realized she'd been twigged, she switched from the single wake-up pulse to random attacks with the sweep and nausea modes. It was bearable, but wasn't pleasant, so I called the police and tried to explain it to them. They were polite, and spoke to the neighbor, but decided the only laws which might have been contravened were noise limits. I asked the council noise inspectors to check, but their meters aren't capable of detecting ultrasonic.

    In the end, the authorities didn't know how to deal with it, but the neighbor stopped using the device anyway, probably because of all the fuss.

    TLDR: They'll use ultrasonics which cause a sensation of fear and alarm. It's manageable by individuals, but a mob will almost certainly run.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."