Sound Cannon to blast protestors

by Number 9 Sun Sep 12, 2004 13:38

Uses of Hyper sonic sound can be benign or sinister. One can guess the application nazi police and military will put it to.

A Hyper Sonic Sound device in a vehicle can direct a "beam" directly at another driver. This can be for police to hail a motoring offender or to confuse an "enemy". "Hey, hippy, pull over now!". "Oh man, that weed is really strong, I keep hearing voices in my head telling me to pull over"
Retail Sales - targeting advertising directly at the point of purchase - at child level for instance.
Portable "bull horn" type device for communicating with a specific person in a crowd of people. "Hey you, put your hands on your head, approach the police man and surrender or you will be shocked with one of our other non-lethal weapons, so the crowd think you are having a heart attack"

HSS can have uses in the home for listening to sound/TV in privacy without headphones. The effects on human health are not yet know although the US FDA has approved it for use. The S220A model from American Technology Corporation is targeted towards professional, commercial, and point of sale applications. It is not intended as a consumer product. You cannot buy it from ATC unless they are happy you are one of the "good guys". Ultrasonic emitter devices are thin and flat and come as small as a deck of cards (see FAQ)

http://www.atcsd.com/pdf/HSSMANUALRevF.pdf

"come out with your hands up"

"She's a terrorist, you need to join community alert"

by until it sleeps Mon Sep 13, 2004 00:37

Hitler probably wouldn't have bothered with the nicety of a sound cannon. Calling everyone you don't like 'Nazis' really belittles the memory of how dreadful they really were.

by R. Hoek Mon Sep 13, 2004 01:10

Ah now aaarrgh, why do you think the nazis would not have bothered with the niceties of a weapon which when mounted on a tank for instance could incapacitate and confuse large amounts of troops on a battlefield, they could have made great use of them on the beaches of normandy for instance allowing them to pin down and confuse troops in a certain area which they would then dispose of using conventional weapons, of course they would not have used them for crowd control and that is the point, they had a military purpose and now our cuddly democratic protectors would use them to police their own citizens. Yay.

But on the other hand i'm not so sure that this country is crawling with cia operatives beaming messages into the heads of their enemies.

What i want to know from anyone who reads this site and understands such things is this, how can we protect ourselves from such weapons, would earplugs have no affect at all and what sort of countermeasures could be employed.

The weapon also raises an interesting debate on assault, which is the application of force no matter how slight, the riot act after all only permits such force to be used on those actually committing a violent act, everyone in the crowd is not guilty, so an indiscriminate sweep of the crowd with such a weapon would with the right legal team be its own downfall, although it might pass muster in the states im pretty sure that here it could be shot down if someone took an action before it became a common place item in riot control like a water cannon, once something becomes accepted its hard to remove but when something is new and shiny its vulnerable. Anyone have any opinions on this.

by harry Mon Sep 13, 2004 02:49

lethal weapons or non-lethal, thats the choice.

by Elaine Mon Sep 13, 2004 03:03

LRAD's are currently being used in Basra, Falluja and elsewhere in Iraq.


"From either a static or mobile location, LRAD can transmit a verbal challenge with instructions at operationally significant distances in a focused beam, and follow up with a powerful warning tone to influence behavior or determine intent."

"As featured on the front page of the June 30 edition of the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. military is becoming the protector of Iraq's offshore oil terminals."


http://mae.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=32&ARTICLE_ID=211006

or go here http://mae.pennnet.com/home.cfm and scroll down.

Above quotes from Military and Aerospace Electronics


Here is what the Honorable Charles McQueary
(Under Secretary, Directorate of Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ) has to say about it.

" We have implemented the process. We have an interim rule; we are listening to industry and a final rule and a better application is coming. · Additional awards are imminent. We are on schedule and we can handle more applications without negative impact on timely reviews. And, we will be streamlining the second version of the applications based on industry input and our experience. · The certifications and designations are not recommendations of the technologies; they demonstrate compliance in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Homeland Security Act. · Companies have shown DHS that their technology works as intended; DHS has shown that the SAFETY Act process works as intended; and now it is time for the market place to work as intended."

And here is how the SAFETY Act process works...


>SAFETY Act

"On October 10, 2003, Secretary Ridge signed an interim final rule implementing the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act which was a requirement of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The SAFETY Act is designed to encourage the development and rapid deployment of life-saving, anti-terrorism technologies by providing manufacturers and sellers with limited liability risks. "

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1231&wit_id=3555

by Jane Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:40

better than shooting the crowd...as they do in Syria, Iran, etc...but nobodys interested in that,
what about womens rights to protest anywhere in the middle east - or right work/ or right to vote/ or right to drive
dont you see the appartheid in the middle east?
half the population are second maybe third class citizens,
ever protest that?
ever compare that to South Africas appartheid?
you display prejudices in highlighting selective injustice - that says alot about you - more than anything you write can.

by C sna C Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:56

"Could be worse"
-If you're being honest "Jane" which I doubt, your logic is infantile at best, i.e "you're not protesting about "this" so you shouldn't be protesting about "that".

It's more likely that you're the usual bitter old throwback throwing in right-wing sneers masquerading as logic in a pathetic attempt to try undermine any article which highlights the sinister machinations of the market.

by Jane Mon Sep 13, 2004 14:06

I am being honest...the sinister machinations of the market...what????
So I made no point worth addressing?
Stick with your double standards and calling people Nazis it obviously keeps you warm inside in your delude idea of reality

by Jane Mon Sep 13, 2004 14:49

u consider womens rights- or lack of - right-wing sneers - listen to yourself please

by Elaine Mon Sep 13, 2004 18:17

The original topic concerned new technology which could be used to stifle democratic protest. In the West we are lucky (?) indeed that we do have the right to protest, for now. Most of the protests concern the rights of other people, both male and female. ie Anti-War, Residents against Racism, Anti-Globalisation etc, et al. They are an attempt to highlight inequalities throughout the globe, growing prejudice at home and unfair trade practices between the West and developing countries. Any suggestion that it's better to be blasted by a LRAD than shot is missing the point. Those of us who have access to free speech and democracy have a duty to speak out on behalf of those without. If we are hindered from trying to improve the lot of our fellow human beings by peaceful means, then who will speak out for them? Ultimately, who will be left to speak out for us when we are silenced? Is our future to become increasingly militant? Bearing in mind that one nations 'terrorist' is another nations 'freedom-fighter'.
There is much wrong with our world, from inequalities between the sexes to inequalities between nations. In his book 'The Art of Loving', Erich Fromm writes...
".. I do not wish to imply that we can expect the present social system to continue indefinitely, and at the same time to hope for the realisation of the ideal of love for one's brother. People capable of love, under the present system, are necessarily the exceptions; Love is by necessity a marginal phenomenon in present day Western society. Not so much because many occupations would not permit of a loving attitude, but because the spirit of a production-centred, commodity-greedy society is such that only the non-conformist can defend himself successfully against it. Those who are seriously concerned with love as the only rational answer to the problem of human existence must, then, arrive at the conclusion that important and radical changes in our social structure are necessary, if love is to become a social and not a highly individualistic, marginal phenomenon."
So there you go, Lennon was right... All you need is Love!
Name calling and bickering is divisive, better to channel you energies into a cause. Pick your favourite 'injustice' and set to work remedying it. You may end up taking it to the streets - watch out for the LRAD's as you exercise your rights.

by Tom Mon Sep 13, 2004 19:20 olearys at oceanfree dot net

Amen sister!!

"The Art of Happiness", in which an American psychologist interviews the Dali Lama, speaks much about the compassion that resides in all, even the most venomous, of us.

In order to make the "love machine" mainstream, however, Fromm is correct in expressing the need for a universal social reformation...

No political camp in existence today has the ability to realise such a reformation...even if their concept and vision are based on compassionate ideals. Why? Because, by it's nature, politics necessitates leadership, and leadership necessitates power and authority, and power and authority is corruptive.

Utopian change on a global scale will only be realised when our individual awarenesses awaken enough to prompt a universally shared desire for a more peaceful and harmonious future.

In the meantime, we can only continue in our efforts to make incrimental changes as parts of our own chosen vehicles...whether they be as advocates for workers, or campaigners for women's rights, or as activists against violence and war....

....en mientras, te quiero mucho...

Peace out...

by iosaf Mon Sep 13, 2004 21:47

That hearing voices in your head is not solely the result of such technology.
If you hear voices in your head you might be suffering from a number of conditions, some of which are "psychiatric" in type and some which are not.
You might be very depressed.
You might be psychotic.
You might be schizophrenic.
You might be in regular contact with God or other supernatural forces.
You might be suffering a crises of conscience.

Q. How are you to know if the voices in your head are the result of a Long Range aucustic device or not?
A. Well like the author pointed out, moving your head about will determine whether nor not the voices only occur in the path of a LRAD. If after moving your head about and perhaps going for a walk in a park with good visibility you still hear voices in our head, you might like to remove all your dental fillings.
If after removing all your dental fillings you still hear voices in your head, it might have come to the stage to make careful note of what they're saying. Please under no circumstances follow "orders" which are issued "inter-cranial". If the voices persist, you really ought to talk to someone (outside your head) about them.
Take care of your diet. Deficiencies in zinc and copper are associated with depression and "voices". But remember that zinc and copper are mutually "antagonistic" and if you're suffering a copper deficieny you will probably have stored too much zinc and vice versa. Your pharmacist will be happy to help you determine which you are lacking.

Never allow yourself to think that just because you suffer one of these symptoms "you have gone completely around the bend", they are very frequent and most of us at some stage in our lives will suffer moments of "disassociation" or low intensity hallucinations.

**************************
Now that aside, Can hilal explain how in God's name, a standard and pretty common telecommunication disrupter unit, came to be described as a LRAD "voices in your head" ray gun?
Man, there are enough people suffering from paranoia, (and more than is healthy come to this site) without adding to it.

by a wag Mon Sep 13, 2004 23:49

Maybe they could bombard the protestors with some iosafesque gobbledygook ......

That'd sort them out ....

by ren Tue Sep 14, 2004 01:30

responding to harry, lethal or non lethal weapons as a choice, what a response, police forces use these weapons on unarmed civilians in democracies because they can get away with it, in truth if they opened fire with live ammunition killing indiscriminately they might find themselves in some legal trouble, in this country at least, so its not really a choice for them,(dont jump back with abbeylara because that wasnt a crowd) on occasion people die but there is no policy to harm as many people as possible. Trying to justify non lethal weapons for use on crowds is like trying to justify beating someone up outside the pub for looking at your bird by telling the judge that at least you didnt kill them.

If you are talking about supplying non-lethal weapons to violent leaderships as a more tasteful method of crowd control you know they won't buy them when its cheaper to kill if you have enough control over the flow of information. What can the defence be for using such non-lethal weapons on unarmed marchers, if marchers are armed with sticks, oppose them with sticks, shields, numbers and tactics, if a garda is injured dont be surprised its like being shocked at soldiers fighting, if protestors were armed with firearms have a few sharpshooters and a disciplined armed response, we expect police forces in democratic states to control their urges, instead of attacking the whole crowd, after all the whole crowd is not guilty of anything if one person acts up.

If you can force a whole protest to disperse because you make the area uninhabitable due to sound weapons etc, you are still denying them their constitutional rights and assaulting them even if the tv cameras can't see the assault. Advocating such weapons for use on protestors that only affect most uninvolved peoples lives insomuch as they may delay the sports coverage at the end of the news is a bit drastic. Such weapons would only also lead to distrust and resentment of the police on the part of anyone affected by them and might bring us closer to the day where some nut who believes the cia is in his head takes umbrage brings a gun and really ruins the picinic for everyone.

What you don't want to see is pictures like the ones from america where in a country where everyone can buy guns and protestors choose to march unarmed they are still met with an armed response, though non lethal, weapons are used openly on soft targets, most peole who use excessive force on soft targets in a cowardly fashion these days end up in the terror section of the news because the try to instill fear and teach their opponents a lesson, different actus rea but the mens rea is a distant parallel. If however protestors responded with bean bag rounds and tazers would they be met with non lethal force. No matter what your politics weaponising protest will only lead to greater instability and civil unrest and unless all the pro force people who post here own shares in arms manufacturers what do they hope to get from promoting such policies

As for feeling like we should be happy we have a right to protest at all and to stop complaining as the aptly titled jane (do you come with a free folder every six months like the star trek mags)suggests, you hit it on the head, its a right, we earned it, as i recall there was some sort of struggle involved, but you know us liberals always forgetting history and living in this fantasy world where there is the possibility of having some control in a democracy, actually thinking we should not be eternally thankful and fawning to our governments for not being dictatorships. But is that not the nature of having a liberal democracy (well its defined as one), not to think they are our god given masters who decide whats best . If on the other hand we keep thanking them for small mercies we would only have ourselves to blame if we ended up in a dictatorship.

Luckily though as far as ireland is concerned i think this is mostly academic, it took them how many years to ask for a loan of a water cannon, if sonic cannons were to come on the market i can see future generations of irish protestors treating it almost like the novelty the water cannons were. Such non lethal weapons in crowd control are only a palitable way of forcing people to abandon their rights, if people are actually acting n a criminal fashion we already have laws to deal with them, being shot in the face with a bean bag for example or being incapacitated with sound is not a trial in the due course of law, it is not the place of the police to administer justice on the streets, if such injury is neither assault nor corporal punishment you better have a strong case for its reasonable use on each individual involved.

by Donal Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:50

"what about womens rights to protest anywhere in the middle east - or right work/ or right to vote/ or right to drive?"

Um, in Palestine, which i believe would come under "anywhere in the middle east", women can vote, protest, work and drive cars. I don't know about other nearby countries because i haven't been. There ARE serious problems here regarding gender and equality, but you obviously don't have a clue what they are.

And anyway, where are all the protests you've organised on this issue? It's very easy to complain about others but doing something is just too much effort huh?

by ZXBarcalow Sat Sep 18, 2004 23:48

Jane, who the hell are you referring to when you say "you"? Maybe if you were more specific your rant wouldnt seem no ridiculous.

Are you suggesting that it is actually worthwhile organising a demonstration against the repression of women in some parts of the Islamic world? Do you really think any Muslims would listen to a bunch of pasty Irish people criticising their culture?

Would you take any notice of Muslims marching through Damascus in protest against the Irish porn industry?

The worst part of your sanctimonious posting was when you criticised those principled people who campaigned against Apartheid.

If you actually care about the human rights issues that you use as tools in your little partisan rants, why dont you go out and start up a political campaign, instead of criticising those of us who actually take part in such campaigns.

by Jane Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:40

When did I criticise prople who campaigned against appartheid???
I guess your pretty happy to ignore the issue then - that is what I thought.
Some day you may wake up an recognise how selective you are being.

by Tom - dyslexics untie Mon Sep 20, 2004 13:02 olearys at oceanfree dot net

You're right in highlighting the fact that you didn't suggest anything malicious about anti-apartheid activists...

We've all been at the blunt end of these battles in here...it normally happens when we divert from the original topic....

Your concerns about women's rights in the middle east (and many other places in the world) are indeed warranted and that injustice should be tabled.

I suppose that you have received some flack in here because your concerns, while obviously awakened by something in the article about "sound cannons" and subsequent banter about it, discredited the validity of other concerns that were being discussed.

Perhaps there might be some moral prioritisation system that we could assign to the many complex issues that need to be addressed in the world today; but we really can't belittle another's battle when trying to wage our own. Every injustice needs to be addressed, and unfortunately, the coordination of our efforts is practically impossible due to the wide ranging extent of issues.

Don't take any of the flack in here personally. You are a person of tremendous value in this world and you can and will make a difference.

I'd be really interested in seeing an article posted about women's plight in the middle east and other parts of the world (like the horrible act of removing women's clitori in some countries in Africa). If you write it...I'd certainly be one to read it!

te quiero.....

peace out....

by Joe Mon Sep 20, 2004 13:31

Tom's advice above is quite good. People who bothering organising campaigns on issues or even write about them are well used to then getting the standard 'why do you choose to focus on issue X rather than issue Y' response. A knee jerk (and often correct) reaction to this is that the person asking cares nothing for issue Y either but is simply trying to undermine what i s being said about issue X.

But of course sometimes it is a genuine question and perhaps that is the case here. Probably the thing to then realise is that your talking to people who like you have a limited amount of time and money and have for one reason or another chosen to prioritise issue X. Rather than having a go at them for what they are doing you would be better to put your time into organising around issue Y and you may well find then that people will help out in small ways. Demanding that they do so for you will generally not get you or issue Y anywhere.

by Brett Sun Feb 06, 2005 04:00

The company that makes LRAD is ATC, how about stop complaining and buy a the stock. It is just about $11 right now, was about $6 when this article came out. I mean this is America, you can vote your shares how you see fit, PETA bought a block of stock from US Surgical to influence how they experimented on animals. Why not buy ATCO stock and voice your opinion like real Americans, with votes. OH< and BTW, ATCO has a market cap of about 200 million right now, the company will be worth BILLIONS with the technology - I mean someone has to make next generation sound devices - that is all HSS does, new ways of making and directing sound, localization of sound, long range hailing and high end acoustics - LRAD which is a long range hailing device, with non-lethal capabilities, HSS which is a narrow beam of sound, a column, spot or even start and stop sound at a point in the air - from point A to B... NeoPlanar and SFT are flat ribbon technologies, 1/8th inch thick, no cone, no magnet... Buy the stock, when you grow up you will be thankful for the megabucks and you can hire lawyers to fight your battles and have far more resources to persue your life as well as causes. IMVHO but what do I know .

by hireism - Durt Mon Nov 07, 2005 08:48

Why don't protestors just make there own and fire it back at them?