That sound is audible to anyone with good hearing. I am a sound engineer as a hobby and I could hear that thing loud and clear.

Built one 20 years ago for lab experiments. It is very annoying to some people, but not to others. It does seem women were more effected than men.

People listening to headphones will not hear it at all.

Isn't that some form of discrimination? If we had an alarm that hurt old people, AARP would shit on the manufacturer until they folded.

This will be equal to calling the cops, ultimately pointless.

There is also potential for lawsuits: public rights versus hearing damage (depending on the decibels).

If they do, Arwel Hughes won't be the only one getting drunk, dressing like Vader and beating the crap out of things with a crutch.

@brutek: "People listening to headphones will not hear it at all."

VERY good point!

Speaking as someone in their mid-30's with good hearing, this would bug the crap put of me. I did read an article about a shop owner using one to get "gang members" from hanging out by his store.

Dunno how I feel about this thing. Seems you could eliminate annoying the wrong people and get the dinks wearing headphones if you just waved a pistol at them. Or asked them to leave. Either one.

I'm just wondering how this is legal. The fact that some people can't hear it doesn't change the fact that you're essentially blaring something into the public space - wouldn't this be the same thing as me just cranking up my stereo system and blaring metal out my window? Isn't that a noise violation or something?

What if someone actually gets hearing damage or something from this? Think we'll see a lawsuit?

@Darrone: i want one of these for old people. they creep me out.

@shamoononon: Where things = mosquito noise device generators

I personally approve anyone and everyone using bats and mallets and whatever other long blunt objects and knocking them off of the walls.

@pferde_schwanz: I'm not saying i wouldn't but one. eeesh, all that wrinkly skin and shit.

The problem is they have nothing to do all day but write letters to their senator about the 2 cent tax on Metamucil when we regular people are paying 5 dollars for gas and 7 dollar tolls.

I don't know. Technically, this is a product which is designed to limit human access to public spaces in a discriminatory fashion. You can't simply target a segment of the population and ban them from certain spaces.

I can't believe that a law suit against these wouldn't succeed brilliantly.

I'd rather see them install cellphone blocking devices. Both adults AND teens are generally obnoxious when they yack on cellphone in public places.

I have lousy hearing and I can hear the tones these things generate. I can barely hear my cellphone and I have to crank up music just to be able to hear lyrics.

Of course cranking up music is probably why I have bad hearing. That and jackhammers. Lots of jackhammers.

@Darrone: Oh yes. Missed this comment. I agree.

They're wearing black hoodies. That means they're bad.

On a side note, I'm disappointed they're note using the "brown" tone. Don't give me any of that Mythbusters crap. I believe.

Some enterprising and intelligent youngster with a very nice sound system in the back of his ride could theoretically devise an "acoustic countermeasure" to the siren. While the siren's blaring, the countermeasure (mic-->analyzer-->source-->speakers) could produce an equally loud but exactly opposite sound wave. This could work pretty well especially since we'd be talking about some weird high frequencies not "naturally present." Then you could just have a big block party with beer and teenage titties and everything right under the siren.

That'd teach 'em.

Actually they're already in NYC for the pass couple of months.
[gothamist.com]

This is wrong on so many levels... I hope whatever municipality installs these has to pay the costs of repairing them every week due to vandlism (I sure as hell would destroy any speaker making an irritating sound like that).

If we can discriminate against younger folks like this can we also discriminate against older folks by taking away their drivers liscense at 70?

meh....
Can't we all just get along?

@Pope John Peeps II and @Darrone: You can so long as there is a rational basis, unless it is a protected class.

Reducing customer harassment, vandalism, etc is a rational basis. Dislike of wrinkly skin and grumpiness is likely not. (Not rational in a legal sense. Completely rational in a common sense.)

Age is actually not a protected class at a constitutional level. There are particular statutes protecting against age discrimination in the workplace, and enforced by the EEOC, but they do not cover anyone under 40.

Sure it will work. It will keep teenagers and everyone else away from your shop.

...not to mention the fact that if these devices are intended to repel and remove "gang members" and generally unsavory characters, they'll most likely just cap'em with their handgun de jour. I'd like to see someone deploy these in Chicago.....

Why don't any of my comments get posted?
(At least I have proper syntax, spelling and grammar...)

They do something similar at subway stops in Philadelphia. They pump in classical music from a local radio station to try and keep gangs of kids from congregating. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked, because they're using a 50-year-old PA system that rarely works, and several incidents have occurred since then where gangs of high school students have jumped (and killed) bystanders at those stops.

Had these been around when I was a wastrel teenaged untouchable, I would have tracked down every shop in my area that had these devices and hung out in front of each of them.

Some people never learn, but that doesn't mean you should give up on teaching them.

@92BuickLeSabre: I'm asking this for a legit purpose not to egg an argument, BUT:

Can you create a rational argument based on a prejudice? I mean, if I can claim that theft, vandalism, and harassment occurs only because of teenagers, why is it irrational to say that theft, vandalism, and harrassment only occur because of black people? The argument is essentially the same for both, and yet one is considered rational?

Again, I'd like an actual answer because I don't doubt that the minutia of the law has drawn a distinction in here somewhere.

@ Posavoie;

"If we can discriminate against younger folks like this can we also discriminate against older folks by taking away their drivers liscense at 70?"

As a 60-something driver, I'm all in favor of retesting seniors after they reach a certain age, and then increasing the frequency of retesting as they age. We have 90-year-olds who can barely walk or see driving around in SUVs because their driver's license, which was issued in the 1930s, based on their ability to maneuver a 2-door coupe with manual transmission, is still valid.

Even though it seems outrageous to some to try to repel human teenagers like cockroaches (however many of them deserve it), minors, at least in the US, have never been a protected class civilly, and, unless their parents could show that they suffered some sort of irreparable mental or physical harm (which is dubious at best), these sirens will withstand the test of the courts. Likely though, as is the case with many lawsuits, the store owner will readily take down the siren to not have to spend thousands of dollars on attorneys.

@Darrone: I'll do what I can.

First of all race, religion, gender - those are all given closer scrutiny. Your example, based on race, wouldn't be looked at under merely a rational basis test. It would be strict scrutiny, which requires a "compelling" government interest (for example, national security), the law must be "narrowly tailored" and be the "least restrictive" means. It is virtually impossible to pass a law discriminating based on race and pass this test. (Gender, is subject to an intermediate scrutiny, but it's still very strict.)

Second, the prejudice would have to have some basis (but only some basis.) If the state could show that teenagers contributed to x% of their problems and so this was about property rights or security or whatever (and not merely that they hated teenagers) it would likely be enough. They might not even need real statistics. An anecdotal basis might be sufficient.

Rational basis is a very, very low bar. If you want to see what failing a rational basis test looks like, look at Romer v. Evans. (One of the very few examples.) Actually just the wikipedia entry for it gives you enough info. There the court struck down a law because:

"Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."

So the court found absolutely now possible basis for the law except for the prejudice (animus) alone.

So a law banning blue-eyed people from particular places would likely fail even a rational basis analysis because it would be virtually impossible to come up with any valid reason that blue-eyed people should be treated differently, except that one happened to not like blue-eyed people.

Hope that helps!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

It always amazes me how our society treats our children like pests, and then acts surprised when they turn to crime, or go insane. Of course they have no respect for you! You're a bunch of damn douchebags!

If you really want to repel people, blast a sine wave at around 10k. Fletcher-Munson curve!

every liquor store should just become a bar, then the teenager problem just goes way. the shop owners would then only have to deal with annoying fools 21 or older. that would not help with the problem of the old people loitering though...

quick solution would be spray foam in the front, but that would be damaging private property so we can't do that can we!

Ok, I have two issues/questions...
1: What about the younger children that are appropriately accompanied by an adult? What if I have legitimate business somewhere and I can't take my toddler with me because she's throwing a temper tantrum and I have no idea why? Here I am forcing her to go and punishing her for misbehaving when she just can't stand the sound that I can't hear.

2: Is there somewhere online where I could actually (try to) hear an example of the sound it makes? I'm really curious to (not) hear what it is like.

@johnnyabnormal:

Likely between 14,000 Hz and 18,000 Hz

@HeartBurnKid: Just get in here, spend your money quickly, and GO AWAY! Cottomer Sevris lives.

@flame500: I think have the audio mp3 or wav of the sample at home somewhere. When I get home I'll run it through an EQ analyzer and find out. From my guess of just hearing the sound, it seems higher than that.

@Darrone: Sorry. Two last quick points.

1) It's not "Is this basis rational" it's "Is there any possible rational basis for this." So it's not like the judges get to decide for themselves whether they agree with the law.

2) What classifications are more scrutinized than others doesn't merely come out of the air. It's rooted in the post-civil war Constitutional Amendments and in the Civil Rights Acts. The CRA of 1964, for example, uses the language of "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" again and again. It says nothing about discrimination based on age, etc.

@johnnyabnormal: Although I'm not much of an REM fan...THAT was pretty funny. Caught me off guard and I actually laughed out loud.

@flame500: That makes sense. Even people who don't bombard their ears with loud volumes lose high end sensitivity as they get older. I'm going to be one pissed off grampa when I can't hear crash cymbals anymore.

@Castle1914...what...what...can't hear you!

@dosguy...yes...cell phone jammers...I want one that allows them to put the phone up to their ears...and then it explodes when they try to talk...yeah...

@HeartBurnKid: "You're a bunch of damn douchebags!"

That douche thing is kind of your signature isn't it? That said, I agree in spirit. If you're not wanted anywhere, you'll congregate somewhere.

If someone is creating a nuisance, you summon the appropriate authorities. You don't subject them to technology that has likely only been "safety tested" by the manufacturer.

How could it possibly hurt someone? That is what they always say before it hurts someone.

Now get the fuck off my lawn.

I'll do everybody a favor i'll personally destroy, bomb, blow up etc. the machines making the noise. That thing works on people that don't fit into the teen age group also it works like magic on my family my grandfather who is 85 can hear that damn sound mom dad aunts uncles everybody.

Terrible, that's so depressing.

@utube2007: "it works like magic on my family my grandfather who is 85 can hear that damn sound mom dad aunts uncles everybody."

So. This delinquency thing obviously has a genetic component. You will make an interesting subject.

@92BuickLeSabre: Well I guess no one bothered to challenge the laws or pass an amendment based on age.

Just because something is not yet covered in the Constitution or the law doesn't make it automatically correct. Nothing's actually illegal, or unconstitutional, after all, until someone makes it so.

They play Muzak over a PA at a strip mall near me. I think they use it to keep the vagrants away, actually. I mean, the music is really annoying but only if you stand around long enough to actually listen to it.

They do the same thing in fast food establishments.