Follow up on an idea from England
Uncle and I disagreed on a civil rights issue over in England. That is an oxymoron, are there civil rights in England?
So now that the “Mosquito” is being used in America, do you still think it is acceptable? Our civil rights are colliding with technology. This will be a slippery slope. The sound from this device doesn’t harm people, at least in the short term. So is it acceptable to harass people with technology? The case could be made that a stun gun doesn’t harm people. But if you stun someone who is not attacking you I would bet you would be charged with assault.
Where should the line be drawn?
QUEENS (CBS) Teenagers who hang out inside one apartment building in Jamaica, Queens are getting an earful these days.
A new security device called “The Mosquito” has been installed in the lobby of a building on 170th St. where there have been chronic problems with noisy teens.
The wall-mounted device emits a high-frequency screech that can only be heard by people aged 13 to 25. Most older people cannot hear it.
“It sounds like when you put a microphone close to the TV,” said Jerry Brown, one of the younger residents, who admits the noise bothers him “a little bit.”
The building superintendent said the mosquito has kept the lobby free of loitering teenagers, so far.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Would you say that using this at your place of residence is permissible?
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
A stun gun actually does cause harm, it is just not always lethal harm.
Would a store owner have the right to pipe in Classical Music as a way to discourage teens from hanging out? How is an annoying sound any different?
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Would you say that using this at your place of residence is permissible?
I wouldn’t. My gut tells me this won’t pass the courts. But who knows?
This reminds me a little of cell phone jammers in movie theaters. I don’t want to hear some idiot on the phone in the middle of a movie. But if some gang banger pulls out a gat and starts shooting I would like to call 911.
Where do private property rights supersede civil rights? In the case of the cell phone jammer, is that a violation of civil rights? Maybe not, I’m not sure, but it might be a violation of FCC rules.
Do we have a civil right to make an emergency call on our cell phones?
I don’t look forward to watching the Constitution collide with technology. The liberal progressives will have some interesting viewpoints. You saw what they did with cigarettes. In fact the last go around tgirsch used the example of smoking, which I didn’t buy. The cell phone jammer I think is a better example.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Would a store owner have the right to pipe in Classical Music as a way to discourage teens from hanging out? How is an annoying sound any different?
Annoyance isn’t pain.
Besides, what about a woman with a young child who is not part of the problem?
Should private property owners be able to use a “scatter gun” sonic device which harms all people regardless of whether they are the problem?
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Re: Cellphone jammers
FCC sez illegal. See: http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations_2&id=cellular
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“WARNING: On this property, I use device XYZ that has ABC effects. If you don’t like it, don’t come here.”
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“WARNING: On this property, I use device XYZ that has ABC effects. If you don’t like it, don’t come here.”
It is not an electric fence, I don’t think a sign will absolve you.
The problem is that it affects all young people whether or not they are trouble makers.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
From the story, this building is private property. Therefore, the owner can do what they want, as long as it doesn’t affect anyone off the property.
The story doesn’t state so directly, but I’m guessing that the teens loitering in the lobby aren’t residents of the building, and thus have no right of any sort to loiter there.
If they are residents, and they don’t like the sound thing, they should complain, presumably through their parents, who actually pay the rent. But I’m going to guess that the device was installed after residents complained about the presence of the teens.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Cell phone jammers, I would not return to a movie theater that employed one and I would tell the manager why on my way out. The “mosquito” in a store would elicit a similiar response from me. However, in the lobby of a residential building it had better be in the lease contract.
Annoying music does not cause pain, or other adverse effects. It is not a civil rights issue until a government agancy starts using them. In which case yes it is a civil rights violation.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Oh, technology isn’t colliding with the Constitution. People who don’t like what the document says just use technologies not enumerated as excuses to ignore the provisions that they disagree with.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
i still think a PA system piping some classical and jazz radio station would be just as effective and much less offensive. (although, what with the RIAA being the buncha goons they are, probably a shitload more expensive…)
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Gregg:
If you are willing to discover that a cellphone jammer is in use by leaving your cellphone on, and taking or making a call in a theatre, then I, as a customer, would want the theatre owner to throw you out, and would thank said theatre owner for doing so after you stormed out.
If there is a warning sign up, then there is no tort here … simply don’t use the facility. Unfortunately, FCC regs make a warning sign imprudent.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
One note … a jammer is illegal … but em-proof wall paper is not.
Heh.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
If you are willing to discover that a cellphone jammer is in use by leaving your cellphone on, and taking or making a call in a theatre, then I, as a customer, would want the theatre owner to throw you out, and would thank said theatre owner for doing so after you stormed out.
That is where I was going. If we want the government to “protect” us from irresponsible people, ie dickheads, then we will lose many freedoms. There are a lot of irresponsible people.
Government cannot legislate responsibility. Every time it tries we lose some rights. The right to make an emergency phone call is an important right.
Grant me the right to carry a firearm anywhere and I don’t need the right to make an emergency phone call. Take away both rights and I am left with throwing my cell phone at the gang banger with the gun.
Of course the easy solution is not to go to the movie theater. And I don’t.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
1. Slippery Slope: Please learn what this means.
2. “So is it acceptable to harass people with technology?”
No one has stopped you yet.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
2. “So is it acceptable to harass people with technology?”
No one has stopped you yet.
Ah, noise to your ears?
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
This isn’t complicated. Private property is one thing and government action is another. Do what you want on your property, so long as the ill effects don’t encroach upon the property of others. If your customers don’t like what you’re doing on your own property, you will pay the price in reduced business. Maybe they don’t like the color of your walls, or the air freshener. It’s your decision as the property owner, and it’s the customer’s decision to go there, with the owner’s permission, or not. Period. Both have a right to choose. Any interference in either’s right to choose is a violation.
If there are uninvited “teens” on your property, you should be able to call the police and have them removed, and/or charged with trespassing. I have in fact done this myself, when a customer refused to leave. If the cops don’t cooperate, they are derelict. Then what choices do you have? Not good ones. Hire a bouncer and get sued for touching someone? Install a mosquito. You’re gonna be screwed somehow either way, and all because the cops won’t remove some trespassers.
Civilization cannot exist without the physical protection of property rights– sometimes that means big cops with clubs. Too many Americans have a cloudy perception of what “property rights” means, and of course this plays into the hands of the socialists and anarchists.
Say what you will about the FCC (I figure spectrum should be exactly like real estate– owned, bought and sold, titled). Right now there are laws restricting EM emissions, and for the most part I don’t have a quarrel with them. If you emit EM radiation, causing harmful interference to cell phones or other allocated, licensed services, that’s breaking the law. EM-shielding is not emitting, and so is not restricted on your own property. My wife’s place of work is a metal-skinned building, and there’s no cell service inside because of it.
Yakking on the phone in a theater is no different whatsoever from yakking with the person sitting next to you in the theater—it tarnishes the enjoyment of the other customers. It’s the proprietor’s choice– he can allow it and lose other people’s business, or he can try to stop it. That’s what bouncers do. He just can’t legally emit a jamming signal, nor can he shoot you for being smelly. And it’s the other customers choice to stay or leave, or to ask for a refund due to the lack of discipline in the theatre.
I don’t see a civil right’s issue here unless the .gov steps in and interferes with the peaceable, free exchange between a property owner and his guests, or until .gov fails in its duty to protect property rights.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:46 am
This thing picks on autistic grownups, too, who often can hear dog whistles and such-like things. There are enough things in the world which drive auties nuts, without adding new ones.
Some of us are armed.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:56 am
#9: Is cigarette smoke okay? Or are “No Smoking” laws unreasonable government intrusion?
Explain the difference, please.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am
#9: Is cigarette smoke okay? Or are “No Smoking” laws unreasonable government intrusion?
Explain the difference, please.
To your question, I don’t see how the government can tell a private property owner that they cannot allow smoking in their restaurant or bar. That to me is a violation of property rights and it is unreasonable government intrusion.
tgirsch wrote that cigarette smoke was the same thing as the the “Mosquito” is. I don’t see that argument. When people smoke are they trying to hurt other people? Trying to drive them away?
This mosquito device exists for one reason, to repel young people. People smoke cigarettes for enjoyment. Yes, there might be a very few that also enjoy bothering people, but that is not the primary objective.
Like I wrote before, if this is a weapon, and it could be aimed, it would be different. But it cannot be aimed. In England the shopkeeper had a button and used it only when young punks came in the store. In the apartment in Queens it is on all the time.
Since this hurts young people who haven’t done anything wrong it is a violation of their rights.
You shoot a shotgun defending yourself and take out innocent people along with the threat to you, you are responsible for hurting those innocent people.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I’d have an issue with this if it actually was painful to teh kids. It’s only annoying, and it’s annoying to the kids in a way that muzak is annoying to me. It’s not fingernails on the blackboard annoying.
We’re not talking orbital mind control lasers here.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
We’re not talking orbital mind control lasers here.
Isn’t that the point? At what point does this take the next step? If I hit you with a creme pie, it doesn’t hurt, but it is assault.
What if the shopkeeper sprayed cheap cologne from a super squirter on the young punks? That would be an annoyance. But it is also probably assault.
At some point someone will turn the power up enough until it really hurts. So if it drops them to their knees that would be bad, but to just annoy them is acceptable?
Maybe the shopkeepers will want one of these:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?
March 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Check out the totally unofficial “Bill of No Rights” by Lewis Napper, Article II:
March 4th, 2008 at 11:37 am
If you can’t tell the difference between an annoying noise, a custard pie to the face, and a taser, there is no point in having this discussion.
(Hint: Two of those three can be prosecuted as Assault and Battery. Guess which two.)
March 4th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Yes. We’re talking about an annoying noise generator on private property. If the annoying noise extends to private rented space, or public property, I’d say you have a case.
Yup.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
If you can’t tell the difference between an annoying noise, a custard pie to the face, and a taser, there is no point in having this discussion.
Annoying noise is not assault. Even if autistic people are involved.
But there are laws against “annoying noise”. Have a party, put those big speakers on the lawn and turn it up, play it loud, will the cops come?
I know this sounds off track for me. But it is not so much this device I am concerned about as it is the next device or the one after that.
I don’t think a device which cannot discriminate between the people causing the problem and the general public should be allowed.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
#9- Just what kind of gun can fix a heart attack, diabetic coma, or fire?
On the mosquito- it’s private property. They don’t have to let ANYONE come in (Assuming it’s non tenants) they don’t want to. As long as the sound isn’t projected outside their property, it’s just exactly like playing (insert name of music you hate).
This is a non issue.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
A clear case of “annoying noise” intruding into someone else’s space.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
…and if the Mosquito is disrupting business on someone else’s property, then it becomes someone else’s problem, but not until then.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
…and if the Mosquito is disrupting business on someone else’s property, then it becomes someone else’s problem, but not until then.
Woman with a young child lives in the building, mother and child walk to elevator, child says, “Mommy it hurts” or “Mommy I’m scared”.
Do the people that live in the apartment building have any rights?
Or is it just tough luck, you don’t like it then move.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
#9- Just what kind of gun can fix a heart attack, diabetic coma, or fire?
I don’t understand.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I’m sorry, my understanding of the Mosquito is it is highly annoying, not painful.
Annoying is not illegal.
People who reek of cigarette smoke annoy me. Old women who marinate in perfume annoy me. Men who shower twice a year and smell like it annoy me. Hippies who think Pitchouli is deodorant annoy me.
Last I checked they are all just things I have to put up with.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I could be worried about the “next device” or the “one after that”.
I’ll bet it crosses my “line in the sand”, though.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
The end of “No Children Allowed” apartments was a big, big mistake.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
The end of “No Children Allowed” apartments was a big, big mistake.
In retrospect I could have made this case much simpler, children have rights.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Kristopher,
Wow, not sure how you decided that I was going to be talking indiscriminately on my cell phone in a movie theatre. See, I have elderly prents who are not in the best of health. When I am anywhere that extraneous noise would disturb others, I politely turn my cell to vibrate only. Thus, if there is an emergency during that time I am able to slip out and respond appropriately. It’s called being grown up you yahoo.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
In retrospect I could have made this case much simpler, children have rights.
So do property owners, whose rights should include the right to decide who is and who isn’t allowed on their property. It shouldn’t make any difference how that property is used.
If I owned an apartment building, I should be able to rent to whomever I want, for whatever reason-race, hair color, gender, marital status, whatever. Likewise, if I own a business, I should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason I choose. And as long as the noise doesn’t effect anyone OFF my property, I should be able to make whatever noise I want ON my property.
Civil rights laws went a VERY long way in eroding property rights in this country.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
You did not mention that, Gregg. You simply gave us a paen to your “right” to use a cellphone on someone else’s property. My telepathy skills are non-existent … I ca nonly go by what you choose to tell us.
The theatre should post a notice that it is taking steps to prevent cellphone use, and will eject users if caught.
You can choose not to go to the theatre. You can even bitch loudly about it. You might even have a goodreason. We don’t have to care, though. And we can point and laugh if it pleases us.
No one is harmed here … no pocket is picked, and no one has their basic human rights infringed. Your feelings might be hurt … too bad. We are not responsible for what goes on between your ears.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:48 am
HL, you are right, the property owner has that right. He should also have the courage to exercise that right without assaulting everybody.
I have no patience with cowards who will fuck over everybody to avoid the responsibility or addressing the trouble makers.
Cowards deserve no consideration, they should run and hide, even if they must leave their own property to hide really well. They should not be allowed conceal their cowardice under the guise of a universal policy that also impinges on those not causing problems. In fact, they should be bitch slapped, well maybe not that, but they should certainly be objects of public ridicule.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I have no patience with cowards who will fuck over everybody to avoid the responsibility or addressing the trouble makers.
Well put.