My sister and I plugged fingers in our ears as our dad stood confused. We were crouched in front of a 7/11
convenience store which installed the latest deterrent to teenage loitering. The device was a Mosquito. A
Mosquito is a security implementation that emits a high frequency tone that can only be heard by people
under the age of twenty-five. This post examines the tangled morality of the new device.
convenience store which installed the latest deterrent to teenage loitering. The device was a Mosquito. A
Mosquito is a security implementation that emits a high frequency tone that can only be heard by people
under the age of twenty-five. This post examines the tangled morality of the new device.
(Jan. 9. 2019. Taken by Spencer Wilkins)
Finally, a safe way to deter adolescent loiterers. This is how Compound Security Systems (CSS), the
Mosquito’s manufacturer, markets it. They categorize The Mosquito under the umbrella of Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED). The theory of CPTED is that with strategic urban planning crime
can be subliminally lowered. Flood lights and security cameras are both examples of CPTED items. CSS
often compares The Mosquito to the CPTED method of playing classical music as a deterrent, as both signal
to young people that a space is not meant for them. However, classical music and The Mosquito have a key
difference. The Mosquito causes pain. The CPTED protocol states, “CPTED limits itself to inscribing a space
with signals that project authority and instruct individuals as to how to conduct themselves. None of its
techniques cause physical harm or pain” (Akiyama 459). CSS argues that because the device does not cause
long term hearing damage it complies with CPTED guidelines. I personally believe the short term pain
sensation is no longer a subliminal city planning choice, it is an explicit signal bodily prevention of youth. In
addition to the troublesome pain aspect, The Mosquito perpetuates the notion of adolescents as a biologically
different category of human.
Mosquito’s manufacturer, markets it. They categorize The Mosquito under the umbrella of Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED). The theory of CPTED is that with strategic urban planning crime
can be subliminally lowered. Flood lights and security cameras are both examples of CPTED items. CSS
often compares The Mosquito to the CPTED method of playing classical music as a deterrent, as both signal
to young people that a space is not meant for them. However, classical music and The Mosquito have a key
difference. The Mosquito causes pain. The CPTED protocol states, “CPTED limits itself to inscribing a space
with signals that project authority and instruct individuals as to how to conduct themselves. None of its
techniques cause physical harm or pain” (Akiyama 459). CSS argues that because the device does not cause
long term hearing damage it complies with CPTED guidelines. I personally believe the short term pain
sensation is no longer a subliminal city planning choice, it is an explicit signal bodily prevention of youth. In
addition to the troublesome pain aspect, The Mosquito perpetuates the notion of adolescents as a biologically
different category of human.
The Mosquito exploits biases against adolescents. The sensational media divides crime across age
boundaries, and in turn this divide bleeds into everyday perceptions. In 2007, a survey was conducted in
which “1.7 million British respondents admitted they avoid going out after dark for fear of encountering
gatherings of youths, and 1.5 million said they've thought about moving to get away from loitering youngsters”
(Gillis 42). Here the association between youth culture and crime is clear. By operating on a biological
difference in the hearing ability of adolescents and adults, The Mosquito reaffirms the two categories as
biologically separate people. From MRI scans we viewed in class we understand prefrontal brain development
varies on a case by case basis and not all teenage brains are the same. The Mosquito operates under the
assumption that teenagers are crime prone and will congregate without being physically prevented.
Unfortunately, because of its efficacy the device will likely grow in popularity. Soon more communities will
encounter the problematic security protocol known as The Mosquito.
boundaries, and in turn this divide bleeds into everyday perceptions. In 2007, a survey was conducted in
which “1.7 million British respondents admitted they avoid going out after dark for fear of encountering
gatherings of youths, and 1.5 million said they've thought about moving to get away from loitering youngsters”
(Gillis 42). Here the association between youth culture and crime is clear. By operating on a biological
difference in the hearing ability of adolescents and adults, The Mosquito reaffirms the two categories as
biologically separate people. From MRI scans we viewed in class we understand prefrontal brain development
varies on a case by case basis and not all teenage brains are the same. The Mosquito operates under the
assumption that teenagers are crime prone and will congregate without being physically prevented.
Unfortunately, because of its efficacy the device will likely grow in popularity. Soon more communities will
encounter the problematic security protocol known as The Mosquito.
Bibliography
Akiyama, Mitchell. “The Mosquito Youth Deterrent and the Politics of Frequency.” Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 35, Iss. 3, 2010, p. 455-471.
https://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2261/2969
https://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2261/2969
Gillis, Charlie. “Please keep away from children: Anti-loitering gadgets, hoodie bans: why is the U.K. afraid of its young?” Maclean’s, vol. 120, no. 7, 26 Feb. 2007, p. 42
https://archive.macleans.ca/article/2007/2/26/please-keep-away-from-children
https://archive.macleans.ca/article/2007/2/26/please-keep-away-from-children
Comments
Post a Comment