×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

G20 Protesters Blasted By "Sound Cannon"

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the background-music-by-disaster-area dept.

Government 630

aaandre sends word of the use of a "sound cannon" on G20 protesters in Pittsburgh. Only a few hundred protesters took to the streets. The NY Times notes: "City officials said they believed it was the first time the sound cannon had been used publicly." The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound, at levels that can reach 151 decibels, over a distance of a mile or more. The Guardian notes, "It is feared the sounds emitted are loud enough to damage eardrums and even cause fatal aneurysms." Officials of the company that manufactures the sound cannon say that ear damage is only possible if someone manages to stand directly in front of the device for an extended period.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

630 comments

Good. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550221)

Fuck 'em.

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550335)


The police who used this? Yeah. We don't need police driving around inflicting pain on any individuals or groups that they or the government disapproves of. Now what law or part of the constitution does this contravene and what steps are necessary to bring a prosecution?

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550591)

We don't need anarchists in ski masks committing acts of violence and vandalism.

What is sad is that the thoughtful arguments against much of what goes on in the G20 conferences are completely obscured by these cretins. It also does not help that all these other peripheral (not G20/economic order related) issues are added to the fray to further muddle a message that is worthy of being heard and directly relevant to the event being protested. Anarchists and hooligans do not positively contribute to any serious debate and they merely insure that large numbers of the potential audience turn away dismiss the whole thing. Their reputation (which stains all protesters) incite the politicians and police act more forcefully more quickly against any perceived threat.

You have to pick your friends wisely and be quick to denounce the lunatic fringe trying to appear to be on your side. That said, I'd rather have police use water cannon and sound guns than guns or batons when they can.

Re:Good. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550623)

Yeah? Let's see them use the same techniques against the Tea Baggers carrying guns.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550349)

How else are you supposed to register your discontent with the government's policies? A letter can easily be thrown away and a phone message is similarly ignorable. If voting decisions are based off of other unrelated subject matter how else are these people supposed to communicate?

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550357)

If you don't like your government's policies, find a new government. Nobody's stopping you.

Re:Good. (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550437)

Umm. This article is pretty much about just one of the ways that lots of people are stopping you.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550657)

Nobody's stopping you from voting with your feet and jumping ship to a different country. The article is about Pittsburgh's finest giving a bunch of whiney, bitchy hippies what they rightfully deserve.

Off course it can damage the hearing permanently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550225)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise-induced_hearing_loss#Acoustic_trauma

The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550279)

"Officials of the company that manufactures the sound cannon say that ear damage is only possible if someone manages to stand directly in front of the device for an extended period."

151 Decibels? Officials lie.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc. (3, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550511)

The OSHA standard [occupation...ngloss.com] stops at 115 db for 15 minutes. If we extrapolate the chart upwards (strictly against regulations), we'll see 120 db for 7.5 minutes, 125 db for 3.75 minutes, 130 db for 1.875 minutes, 135 db for 56 seconds, 140 db for 28 seconds, 145 db for 14 seconds, and 150 db for 7 seconds.

7 seconds is prolonged exposure? OK. Tell me another one.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc. (2, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550587)

Unless it's using a different definition of dB than I'm used to, 3dB is a doubling, not 5.

Re:The company should be named "Ear Damage", Inc. (4, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550645)

Yep. 3dB doubles the sound. You know that, I know that. The OSHA exposure limits (which are, by far, the most permissive of the three in my link), however, are graded by 5dB.

Next step: (1)

Nithendil (1637041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550235)

Pain cannons.

Re:Next step: (5, Informative)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550261)

Already there [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Next step: (1)

qbast (1265706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550471)

Looks like good tool for 'enhanced interrogations'. Just direct the weapon at subject that can't run and wait until he is ready to tell you everything he knows and quite a lot of things he actually does not know. Could be marketed as high-tech replacement for traditional hot irons.

Re:Next step: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550317)

Or earplugs

This looks... (1)

Dentrasi (1587021) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550237)

Sort of like the 'Mosquito' devices that are aimed at anyone under 21...

Re:This looks... (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550519)

I have very good high-frequency hearing (and am over 21), and those devices are annoying -- I've heard homeowners using them in their front lawns. How are they different from shining laser pointers in people's eyes? (Note that ordinary laser pointers will not cause blindness in people with healthy ocular reflexes.)

Department of Orwellian Reasoning (5, Insightful)

CubeNudger (984277) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550251)

Our weapons are only deadly if you stand in front of them!

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (1, Insightful)

lurch_mojoff (867210) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550371)

On the other hand, you have to consider the fact that the weapons that have been used in the past in place of this "sound cannon" for crowd control - rubber bullets and wooden batons, for example - are significantly more likely to cause bodily harm, including permanent damage and "fatal aneurisms". And they are significantly harder to escape.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (5, Informative)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550411)

They've already used rubber bullets, batons, and fucking tear gas...
A friend of mine has been out there for the majority of this week.
Seeing that they only just used this now it's pretty pathetic.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (4, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550689)

A friend of mine has been out there for the majority of this week.

Is he a journalist or a protester?

If he's a protester, I am curious just what he thinks he's accomplishing? For the life of me, I have no idea what they're protesting about, or what their problem with the G20 and every other type of international economic summit is, or what they think they can do about it. If their goal is to "get the word out"; well, they're doing a really shitty job.

As far as I can tell, they're just a bunch of punks who are causing damage and rioting for the sake of causing damage and rioting under the false pretense of standing up for something.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550701)

As far as I can tell, they're just a bunch of punks who are causing damage and rioting for the sake of causing damage and rioting under the false pretense of standing up for something.

From what I saw during the Seattle WTO protests, they accomplished the acquisition of a lot of free televisions.

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (4, Insightful)

Colonel Sponsz (768423) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550571)

On the other hand, you have to consider the fact that the weapons that have been used in the past in place of this "sound cannon" for crowd control - rubber bullets and wooden batons, for example - are significantly more likely to cause bodily harm, including permanent damage and "fatal aneurisms". And they are significantly harder to escape.

True, but: there is a mental (and often legal) barrier for the use of any weapon, and the less harmful a weapon is perceived to be, the lower that barrier is. Google "taser death" or "pepper spray injury"; cops perceive tasers and pepper spray to be harmless, so they use them indiscriminately.
And speaking of indiscriminate use, there is also the matter of target discrimination: you have to mentally pick a person to strike with a baton and then physically hit him. You have to aim every rubber bullet you fire. This? Just sweep the entire crowd with the sound cannon - after all, it's harmless!

Re:Department of Orwellian Reasoning (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550579)

How are those things harder to escape? A baton only requires you move about two feet away. The sound cannon's range, duration, ease of targeting and continual application (even on a moving target) vastly exceed that of rubber bullets.

Freedom of assembly (5, Funny)

craklyn (1533019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550255)

You have the right to freely assemble, everyone knows that. But nowhere - in no so-called constitution - does it say you also have the right to hear when you're assembled. Nor do you have the right to leave the assembly retaining all your ability to hear.

Once we learn our civic rights, and what we're not entitled to, we'll be a much happier and easier people for the government to govern.

Re:Freedom of assembly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550323)

Hey just don't tase me bro!

Re:Freedom of assembly (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550563)

That's the problem. The perceived non-lethality of the weapons causes police to use them more recklessly and with much greater frequency.

Re:Freedom of assembly (2)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550633)

the right to peacefuly assemble also means the goverment has no right to do anything to prevent us from doing so.. it helps to know that the ppl have MORE rights then the goverment

Re:Freedom of assembly (3, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550685)

Well, to be fair, you have a right to assemble _peacefully_. Quite a bit of the 'protesters' were smashing windows, burning, and otherwise destroying nearby private property. So it really all depends on who specifically they were using it on. Which personally I would bet was probably the wrong people, but I also have absolutely no evidence for that...

WHAT? (5, Informative)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550275)

It's interesting that there's a Geneva Convention on weapons specifically designed to cause blindness [wikipedia.org] , but apparently nothing about deafness.

Re:WHAT? (2, Funny)

semargofni (1476489) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550295)

Sorry, what was that you said?

Re:WHAT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550447)

Sorry, what was that you said?

[YELLING] I said... if you got hit by the sound cannon during our last protest use closed captioning while watching FOX NEWS, CNN, and CBS for details on the plans for our next protest (make sure to bring sunglasses or a welding helmet). [/YELLING]

Re:WHAT? (1)

craklyn (1533019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550301)

I suppose it's difficult to regulate things that cause deafness. If a bomb can destroy buildings or bunkers, it can obviously cause deafness even if you're not in the range where your flesh is torn from bone.

Re:WHAT? (3, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550391)

And an explosion can cause blindness, too.

The ban is on weapons *specifically* designed to blind people, as opposed to those for which blindness is merely a side effect.

Re:WHAT? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550539)

I am not sure that the provision would have stopped this. After all, they claimed that it wasn't "specifically designed" to cause deafness. Which means that if they could justify this weapon for that reason, then they could also justify high intensity light based weapons as well. It's BS for sure but that doesn't mean that they won't look high and low to find some way to weasel it in somehow.

Re:WHAT? (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550691)

It's interesting that there's a Geneva Convention on weapons specifically designed to cause blindness , but apparently nothing about deafness.

That applies to military use only, anyway. Any government can feel free to fsck with their own people as they want.

The Bush administration (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550285)

There are also you tube videos of peaceful protesters being tear gassed while trapped in a stairwell between two sets of riot police and another video showing at least one protester being stuffed kidnap style into an unmarked car by US soldiers. If this happened during the Bush administration there would be tons of posts ranting about civil liberties and what not. Why not now during the Obama administration?

Re:The Bush administration (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550311)

Why not now during the Obama administration?

Because you're the 5th poster and you've apparently gotten the cognitive dissonance down to an art, since you're complaining about nobody complaining about "Obama doing it" in an article complaining about it being done.

Re:The Bush administration (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550379)


There are around six posts at the time of writing this one. Give it a little time. If there's anything clear, it's that oppression of people through means such as this isn't limited by what party is in power. Trampling the constitution like this should be objected to by intelligent Democrat and Rebublican voters / members.

Testing the limits of repression (0, Troll)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550299)

When they start mounting these to the front of congress and the senate, we're screwed.

Re:Testing the limits of repression (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550355)

Depends which way they're pointed.

Re:Testing the limits of repression (3, Insightful)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550359)

Haven't you already heard? Our politicians were deaf to the cries of the people LONG ago.

Re:Testing the limits of repression (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550573)

We are already screwed. Congress and friends have already got control of a disturbing amount of power in the US and no one really did anything about it as it is. These less than lethal weapons combined with the slow disarmament of the populace will only make our job as citizens harder.

Re:Testing the limits of repression (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550653)

We were screwed when we gave up our right to bear arms...in the true meaning of the amendment, "military style weapons". See the rulings in 1938 and 1966.

extended periods unavoidable with crowds (4, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550307)

Ever seen the results of a panic in a crowd?
They can't maneuver to save their lives, literally.
Extended periods in the area of effect is going to be absolutely unavoidable.

I know the people pushing for these weapons show "examples" of targets getting out of the way quickly and efficiently. Of course, these are rigged. The targets are trained individuals (often military or police) who are in limited quantities (never seen more than a dozen at once) and are not panicking because they know exactly what's going to happen, exactly what to do, and how to evacuate the test area. That is as much of an unrealistic situation as using the film work of a Hollywood stuntman to show that it's safe to fall down stairs.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (5, Informative)

JLF65 (888379) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550377)

Well, if people would RTFA, they'd see the "brief periods" is not how long you stand in front of the weapon, but how long they use it. As mentioned in the article, riot police used a "brief blast" that caused the crowd to recoil, giving the riot police room to safely use tear gas and bean bag projectiles.

The police don't turn this thing on and leave it running. That WOULD cause deafness. They only use it as needed in brief bursts. I'm sure there's probably some "training" they make the users of the device go through, just like the training they do for the Taser.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (5, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550507)

Isn't it rather disgusting that police feel the need to use multiple sophisticated weapons against a group of people guilty only of "marching without a permit"?

Dispersing a crowd by force is something that should only be done in extreme circumstances. From TFA it doesn't look like this qualifies.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (4, Insightful)

Mprx (82435) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550513)

"OSHA also states that "exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level" (CFR 1910.95(b)(2))"

This thing runs at 151db, and it's a tight beam so there'll be little volume loss with distance. No matter how brief the blast it will cause hearing damage. This is a device designed for permanently disabling people without visible damage, and it should be banned under international law just as blinding weapons are. Everyone who makes/sells/uses this device should be executed for war crimes.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550663)

The OSHA covers what is legal and reasonable for working conditions, not for an illegal protest. Apples and oranges.

Re:extended periods unavoidable with crowds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550543)

Woah, bean bags [google.com] , really?

Biggest gang in America! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550321)

Remember when cops used to wear the blue uniforms with the badge on the hat and do a beat through a neighborhood? Now it's tanks and armored cars, military fatigues and terrifying weaponry for the sake of... what? The answer is holding their turf. They're thugs!

Re:Biggest gang in America! (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550365)

They still 'do a beat through a neighborhood', it's just a different type of beating...

In reality, there are good cops, but every bad cop outweighs all the work of a hundred good ones. And then there are the guilty by association cops, you know, the ones that don't speak up against the wrongdoing of the bad cops, or worse, help hide it...

Apathy, the next frontier (2, Insightful)

Xanavi (1197431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550343)

Just stand by and watch freedom die. Why not? It's quite obvious when the big guns come out for globalist agenda meetings, not according to numbers of protesters or violence levels. It is also quite obvious that precedents are being set using the military on the streets of Pittsburgh for a small protest, like there aren't enough cops.

Re:Apathy, the next frontier (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550553)

Just stand by and watch freedom die.

It being this blatant is a strong indication that freedom has already been dead for a good long while. Plans for "emergency" situations were on the books in the mid-80s; there was Waco in 1992, etc.

Freedom in that sense was already dead by the time the WTC attacks happened, too. You can be sure that they would not have been committed, if the STS crowd thought they weren't going to be able to get away with it.

Apathy is part of the problem, but a bigger part of it is division. The globalist cabal are organised now to a degree that it would take a similar level of organisation to stop them. The whole reason why that organisation doesn't happen, is because everyone is waiting for the person next to them to make the first move, so that they know that they aren't simply going to charge in as a single person, have their head meaninglessly blown off, and for the machine to then simply keep rumbling on.

The other thing is, the contemporary STS [ahealedplanet.net] demographic know their limits. They're not going to publically institute concentration camps or similar such things, precisely because they know that that is how Hitler operated, so that is what the public thinks that fascism looks like.

They never kill too many people at once, either. 9/11 was the big incident; you won't see the body count that high in one incident again for a long time. That much death in one hit isn't what they want; it makes too many people restless, and causes too many questions to get asked. If it gets too bad, it also can't be reconciled with the patriotic illusion of freedom that they try and maintain, as well.

These days, instead of blatant fascism, they churn out World of Warcraft, pornography, game shows, reality TV, and celebrity gossip as news in order to keep people distracted, so that when an isolated incident like the one in question happens, most people don't notice because they're too busy playing with their IPhones or watching YouTube or TV.

A few people will get killed, but not that many. Because it's only ever small groups that get killed, the STS crew can simply label it terrorism and use that as their justification for murder, and the majority will go back to sleep, if they even batted an eyelid at all.

Wanting freedom in the context of past ages is not a realistically attainable goal, in today's society; because there aren't enough other people who care about it, and without the proverbial critical mass, all you'll get is your own head blown off for trying anything.

If you want some good advice; study survivalism, turn your TV off, get rid of your mobile devices as much as you can, and above all, keep your head down. Political freedom might not be possible any more, but if you play your cards right, a tolerable existence still is. If the guys at the top want to stay in power, they know they have to keep us quiet to an extent.

Sounds fishy (2, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550347)

Next thing you know they will tell us that all that water usage at a Space Shuttle launch is not necessary for sound suppression, and it's perfectly safe to have yourself right next to the shuttle launch, your hearing won't be blasted to kingdom come.

All loud sounds are damaging, no matter how short the bust actually is. The hair follicles within the ear cannot grow back, once damaged that's it. That's why we have progressively worse hearing in old age.

Extremely annoying sound (1)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550351)

"The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound..."

Ah, I was wondering what had happened to Daphne and Celeste.

Re:Extremely annoying sound (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550403)

Really? I thought it'd be more like "Y... M. C. A."

Obivous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550425)

Developers, developers,developers....

Obligatory... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550367)

DON'T SONIC BOOM ME, BRO!

OBAMA IN ACTION (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550409)

I can't wait to see what happens when they take over healthcare

Sonic weapons (1)

Heytunk (1559837) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550413)

Sonic weaponry is honestly quite nasty stuff, and should be banned.

The variety of side effects they can induce ranging from hearing loss to liquefaction of internal organs isn't a laughing matter, especially when its almost as simple as turning a dial for the operator.

The hedgehog (1)

Carra (1220410) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550603)

I agree. Nothing more terrifying then waking up and seeing an army of hedgehogs in your garden.

Wow... (3, Interesting)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550419)

That is fucking horrible! Why do they even need to disperse a crowd of only a few hundred people!? I know that if I were there, it would just piss me off, and make me want to attack the vehicles! I'm normally a peaceful guy, but when people unfairly fuck with me, I just makes me pissed off.

Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this, if someone had the forethought to bring them... Or maybe that would be "resisting... something" and you'd get arrested? Ugh, this is really fucked up.
-Taylor

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550515)

It's only a question of time before we see a video of somebody using a shotgun at the speakers. Or better yet, deploy the same sonic weapon INSIDE the G20 meeting... see how they like their own medicine.

This has got to be a violation of some national and/or international law. Since when is it illegal to peacefully protest!?!?!?!?!???????????

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550625)

It isn't. But if you read more than one source, you'll see that people are shattering glass windows, vandalizing local establishments, various and assorted NON-peaceful protests.

Re:Wow... (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550665)

And like the WTO protests in Seattle, and protests during the Vietnam war, chances are these acts are done by plain clothes officers to give them an excuse to disperse an otherwise peaceful protest.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550679)

Since when is it illegal to peacefully protest!?

      What, you don't like the new world order, comrade? Your IP and proxy servers have been logged. Enjoy your freedom, American citizen. We'll be watching and listening to you more closely from now on.

      The best thing is, Americans think they WON the Cold War... cameras at every intersection, radar monitors automatically checking speeds on roads at intervals, abusive, arrogant police. Yes, victory is sweet indeed.

Re:Wow... (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550517)

By using these weapons they've pretty much guaranteed that future protests will turn violent. I expect that before the year is over we will learn if those sonic weapons are bullet proof or not.

Re:Wow... (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550647)

Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this,

      Not really. There's something called bone conduction, and it actually accounts for around 70% of your hearing. Your skull literally conducts the sound to your inner ear. This is also why your voice always sounds weird when you hear a recording of it played back to you.

      So the 150 decibel annoying noise would probably only be around 95 decibels with earplugs, but even that is pretty loud. Especially if, as another poster noted, they were playing Celine Dion. Then it would be past the pain threshold.

Re:Wow... (1)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550675)

My earplugs are rated for 33dB of protection; bringing the sound level down from 151dB to 118dB will probably not make you much happier. I can't comment on the relative pain or ear bleeding, but both will cause hearing damage in short order.

To be fair, the absorption depends on frequency, and may be somewhat better at whatever frequencies they are using. Still, there is no way you will manage an ideal seal before you are on the ground with an aneurism. It takes me about 30 seconds per ear to get it right, with most of that time waiting for the foam to expand. That is way too slow.

Easier solution (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550423)

Wouldn't it be easier to get this [wikipedia.org] lady to just start talking to the crowd?

I would imagine everyone would be gone in a minute or so.

the projected sound? (2, Funny)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550431)

it's gilbert gottfried doing a commercial for oxyclean with mariah carey shrieking away in the background

Better than a billy club? (0, Troll)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550449)

"It is feared the sounds emitted are loud enough to damage eardrums and even cause fatal aneurysms." "

The professional protesters who travel from place to place to riot every time this (or similar) meetings are held seem to exhibit little fear. Look at the video on the first link. Several photographers didn't even bother to put down their cameras.

If you stand within 30 feet and remain stationary it might damage your ear drums, but because the beam is very focused its and vary directional its easy to get out of the way.
ALL of the citations of "fatal aneurysms" point back to a single reporter named "Kim Dvorac" who cited un-named sources from the department of defense.

The protesters will simply show up with earplugs next time, and continue to smash store fronts, and torch cars, as usual. Apparently thats ok.

But lets not cause them any discomfort. After all, if this device is used on terrorists, it must be a terrorist weapon. It shouldn't be uses on people who merely show up and trash your city. Can't have that.

Re:Better than a billy club? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550595)

The protesters will simply show up with earplugs next time, and continue to smash store fronts, and torch cars, as usual. Apparently thats ok.

But they sure are making their point! Whatever that is. Oh I know:

"The G20 is evil! Look at the horrible things they are doing to the World! See how good we are!" **SMASH**

I wonder if those assholes really believe they are making a difference in people's opinions.

Extremely Annoying Sound (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550457)

>The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound

This is great; Celine Dion can never have too much air-time.

Re:Extremely Annoying Sound (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550607)

>The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound

This is great; Celine Dion can never have too much air-time.

No, if they were using Celine Dion, there would have been fatalities.

Sound Cannon In New Yorker Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550461)

The sound cannon was mentioned at length in a New Yorker article back in June 2008. You'll need a subscription to read the whole article but the abstract is here...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wilkinson

Extremely annoying sound? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550465)

"The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound" What, like soundtrack to Hannah Montana: The Movie? Just wait until human rights activists hear about this.

No difference at all... (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550479)

... to just beating people with batons. Both are nonlethal methods of causing pain (and possibly physiological damage), designed to get people out of an area by force. If just beating the shit out of people isn't justified, use of the LRAD isn't either.

Now, certainly, there are times when it may be justified. But it's a weapon like any other, and the standards for its use shouldn't be lower because it's invisible and acts at long range.

Non violent defensive measures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550499)

I'd imagine that five gallons of honey or liquid mastic would render the sound emitter inoperable.

It must rely on a number of diaphragms to produce and focus the sound, which must be exposed to the air.
Getting some viscous substance on them would lower the frequency response and ruin the focussing.
There would be weather proofing and protection as well, but some should get through.

Easily thwarted (1)

Eminor (455350) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550533)

Protesters will start carrying ear plugs to events.

Re:Easily thwarted (0, Troll)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550687)

They'll have to be some premium earplugs to even manage getting the level down to 125dB, which is still very unpleasant. There is no mention of the frequency involved... very high and low frequencies are not attenuated very much by most earplugs.

This is human rights abuse, plain and simple.

Economic Opportunity! (1)

JM78 (1042206) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550561)

I can see it now... a hoard of ear-plug-peddlers sprouting up at any major protest...

right to peacefully assembly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29550609)

fuck our totalitarian government..

Simple fix. (2, Interesting)

tengeta (1594989) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550617)

If they use military weapons on people, the people should bring weapons and respond in a militaristic style. This isn't fucking Europe.

Re:Simple fix. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550667)

If they use military weapons on people, the people should bring weapons and respond in a militaristic style. This isn't fucking Europe.

It isn't soviet Russia either, but guess what I experienced when visiting? A check point on a major road, where every car was stopped and people were asked for identification.

Guess what happened there?

Nothing.

Those things are still operating.

Sound cannon in action (1)

Stormwave0 (799614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550619)

I have a clip of the sound cannon in action in Pittsburgh. I'm editing it now and will post it on YouTube. It's quite impressive technology but it sucks to be on the wrong end of it.

Re:Sound cannon in action (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550695)

That video will get lost there. Youtube is full of videos with extremely annoying sounds already.

In all seriousness (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550641)

The liberal types out there complaining about free speech zones have a point: The basic problem in Pittsburgh right now (and most other events that have attracted large numbers of protesters) is that police officers almost inevitably treat the protesters as enemies, as criminals, and otherwise as a force that should be minimized, destroyed, and shut down.

So to the police - the vast majority of protesters aren't going to hurt anyone. They're going to say their bit, and go home. That's it. That's all they want.

Where were they at the town halls? (1)

Wansu (846) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550669)

The police show up in force at the G-20 meeting with all the latest riot gear and outnumber the protesters 3 to 1. Yet, there are none at these town hall meetings where angry mobs shout down politicians, protesting changes to the health care system.

Some kid asks John Kerry questions out of turn a couple years ago and gets tasered.

Hard to justify this (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550671)

I prefer they stick with good old-fashioned water cannons. It effectively disperses the protesters; plus (especially important with the G20 protesters) it has the added benefit of providing a free bath! The stench level in the immediate area goes down at least 75%.

You probably think I'm joking; but you weren't in Seattle during the WTO protests - I was.

Why can't we protest a summit meeting? (0, Troll)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#29550693)

What is the big deal. Can't people go outside and shout about something they don't like? Is it necessary to disperse every crowd? Do we just have to repeat the Boston Massacre over and over again on ever increasing scales for the past 200 years?

Is the government just trying to provoke violence to justify more totalitarian actions? Is the supreme court taking a nap and won't hear cases that would limit the amount of intervention that can occur with a protest?

Will people just have to start bringing a case of molotovs to every protest so they can maintain the protest long enough to have some effect and some media coverage? Violence should be a last resort, but without a right to public protest what other options exist?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...