A new device that has recently been rolled out in the United States named, “The Mosquito” is designed to deliver a shrill high pitch noise only audible to teens and young adults. These devices are used by store and shop owners to ensure that teens are not loitering around their properties. See the full story at CNN.com.
Civil Rights activists are enraged by the new device. Their outrage is centered on one feature of the new device in particular, the same feature that makes this product so appealing to shop owner. The sound emitted by this device is only audible by younger adults. The Activists see this as a blatant case of ageism. Ageism is the act of discriminating against a person or group based solely on their age.
I must tell you, the idea of a device like this gives me mixed feelings. On the one hand, I have seen the types of people that this device is intended to deter, and I can fully understand why shop owners would feel justified using this product. Often times these loiterers can be more than a nuisance because they could drive away business and even cause property damage. Authorities tend to dismiss complaints by these business owners because the loiterers or “just kids” and the damage they do is “just a youthful prank.”
On the other hand, I have no doubts in my mind that this product is designed to specifically target younger people, as they are the only ones capable of hearing its high-pitched, shrill sound. This practice by definition can only be considered ageism.
As much as I feel for the shop owners who are driven to spend the $1,500 on this device, the infringement by this device on civil liberties of the youth cannot be ignored. To allow a product like this to become common place in America sets a dangerous precedent. It would open the door for other products that target specific groups as nuisances. The negative applications for these types of products are as dramatic as the gradient of the slippery slope that this argument is based upon.
As always this is an open forum for all voices to be heard. Please leave a comment if you have an opinion on how this should be handled.
April 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm
When I read the article, it pointed out that “only” young adults and teens are generally able to hear the devices, meaning people as old as their mid-twenties would be deterred by the horrible screech they emit. While I am likewise sympathetic to businesses trying to reduce loitering, it sounds like a bad idea all around to me. First of all, you’ll be driving off the young customers as well as the loiterers–I know that if I was shopping, I would scurry past the building that was screaming at me in a heartbeat, and since I fall into the age range that these things are supposed to affect, I’d be thusly deterred. I also heard reports about this device being put on apartment buildings where kids LIVE, so now these poor kids and young adults living in this apartment have to deal with that noise every time they walk out the door?
I agree wholeheartedly with you on the subject of ageism–first of all, not all loiterers are young, and not all young people are loiterers. Secondly, what precedent do we set when we allow a company to create a device that targets a certain group of people as the enemy? There surely has to be a better way to deal with the problem than to torture anyone with sensitive ears who happens to approach your building.