...The new Mark 4 Mosquito puts out noise "at 100 decibels", according to the BBC, which seems unlikely...

Why unlikely? You don't say at what distance from the device the measurement is taken.

It's not unlike saying "this super new car can travel almost one hundred miles in an unspecified period of time".

'"It is quieter than a child playing the violin," inventor Howard Stapleton told the Beeb.'

Yes, but is it as annoying as a child playing the violin?

The fact that the mosquito is "basically just a speaker" is neither here nor there, and legislating against it should be quite straightforward, with no need to ban "stereos-at-ambient-plus-5-decibels" at all.

The mosquito has a very specific aim - to make it unpleasant for people to remain in a location. Simply ban all devices that have this sole purpose.

It's legal to transmit signals, but it's not legal to transmit a signal that blocks mobile phones or interferes with speed monitoring equipment. Why would this situation be any harder to legislate than those?

"It seems that the rights of loitering youths in this case trump those of local authorities"

I expect that kind of issue-skewing, manipulative language from the Daily Mail, not El Reg. Liberty's point is not that loitering youths in particular have more rights, it's that all humans should be free from deliberately unpleasant sounds being foisted upon our poor ears.

And legally, I think it could be easily argued that a deliberate intent to cause unpleasant sensations to others is substantially different to playing one's music loudly for one's own pleasure.

bet it doesn't do much to a chav wearing headphones and a hoody but really f---s off the completly innocent teenager who wants to chill out for a little bit.

That is all.

Is it more or less annoying than chavs at the back of a bus playing gangsta rap on their mobile phone for everyone to endure?

Wasn't it proved that playing classical music, or Cliff Richard tracks, was far more effective?

No, it's baby+child+teen bothering. Note in particular babies, who will likely become distressed, but whose parents will likely be unaware of the cause.

Unless they're hoodie-wearing chavtastic teen parents, I suppose.

It's not that simple. What, exactly, would one ban? A ban that is easily circumvented by the vendors changing how the device is described would be annoying and pointless. Suppose, for example, that the vendor offers a generic sound-producing device that can be programmed to do lots of different things, including the "mosquito" function.

The comparison with blocking mobile phones is rubbish: it is not "legal to transmit signals". In general, it is illegal to operate any radio transmitter. There are specific exceptions for licensed devices such as mobile phones.

They probably constitute a public nuisance.

...They will just not go there. Of course that is the aim. But if, as has been suggested, then it affects adults too then shops that use these will soon have no customers.

I can't imagine the local spar deploying one of these to drive away the chavs that provide 99% of their cider sales.

IANAL, but surely the use of such a device would be a statutory nuisance under s. 79(1)(g) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 since it is "noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance" (causing a nuisance being pretty much the sole purpose of such a device). Users of Mosquito-type devices are, after all, usually trying to keep people from *public* spaces which may be near their premises, but they do not actually own. If the local council won't issue a s. 80 abatement notice, *any* person may bring summary proceedings in a magistrates court under s. 82(1).

I'm over 25 (not by much) but I can hear these horrible things (the ones aimed at children). I tested one with a friend of 32, and he could hear it as well.

If they want to play loud irritating noises, fine. I'll go one further than not hanging around though, and just not go to the area at all. Great for the local economy that is. In the same way I won't use websites that have enormous animated flash adverts that cover up what I'm reading, I won't buy from anywhere that actively discourage me spending time near their shops.

I'm 26 and these things set off my Tinitus somethign rotten to the point it gives me a splitting headache, a shop in the MK Centre deployed one of these so I just avoid that entire stretch of the centre (as it actually causes me pain) so that's about 13 shops loosing out on my business, fine, plenty of others happy to have my money =p.

"The point is it makes it impossible to loiter outside and if an innocent teenager can put forward a case for WHY they need to hang around outside a newsagent/shop/private dwelling after dark, i'll actually go back and tear it off the wall myself."

Nobody needs reason to be in a public place. YOU are the one who needs to provide a reason why they CAN'T be there.

But since I'm feeling generous I'll give you your reason: They have nowhere else to go. If they are inside, you'll be bitching about the generation of couch-potatoes that we're breeding and given that most of the facilities for young people in this country have been sold to build housing or been privatised, they hang out in the few places they can afford to go that have any facilities - namely, a bench to sit on and somewhere to buy drinks/food.

"It's not that simple. What, exactly, would one ban? A ban that is easily circumvented by the vendors changing how the device is described would be annoying and pointless. Suppose, for example, that the vendor offers a generic sound-producing device that can be programmed to do lots of different things, including the "mosquito" function."

Well, that's so easily dealt with I'm surprised it even needs saying. A device incorporating an illegal function is illegal, surely. You don't say "That handgun is legal because it also includes a torch" do you? Or do you?

"The comparison with blocking mobile phones is rubbish: it is not "legal to transmit signals". In general, it is illegal to operate any radio transmitter. There are specific exceptions for licensed devices such as mobile phones."

No it's not. My original point might have been a simplification, but in essence it is possible, as you have demonstrated, to licence certain use of a technology without giving carte blanche. Allowing people to have sound-generating equipment (a hi-fi) does not mean you have to allow them to play nuisance sound to drive people away from a location. And you don't have to frame the law such that nuisance has to to be demonstrated in each instance, merely ban the devices which have that function. Can't own it, can't operate it.

Regarding "no places to go". They tend to hang around on parks and playgrounds.

They only go the shops to beg people to buy them booze and / or just cause trouble.

I'd rather face the gauntlet of an annoying noise (why don't they just broadcast the rants of Shami Chakrabarti?) than fight (literally) my way through a gang of youths.

debaser, improper use is within 100 meters of residential property.

I know of at least one case where a kid who complained of constant ear pain and headaches was taken into care, while adults could hear nothing, which turned out to be a mosquito device less than fifteen meters away from the kid'd bedroom.

The local council refuse to act despite this, and blame the Parents. The mosquito device is still there. The kid is still in care, because the couple (at the time, now split directly as a result of this) in question can't sell the house and even if they could (been trying for a year), they probably can't overturn the care order.

Only last week a campaigner won a court case over exposure to crop spraying because HMG guidelines failed to assess properly the risks from insecticides. The adverse effects of noise on hearing has been known for decades, and I doubt much work would be involved in showing the risk from these devices. In particular, that risk is a function of intensity at the subject position and length of exposure. One device may carry no risk - if every shop on the street has one, the risk may be significant. People take their hearing for granted until it starts going defective - but the changes are mostly irreversible. Barry Manilow, Teletubbies, Wombles, anything is better than very narrow band noise. This device is simply wickedness.

I am well into my 30's and these mosquito devices (that only people under 21 can hear) drive me nuts when they are activated, I can generally hear them from around 300 yards away and then dont bother going any closer.

A friend who is now in his 50's can also hear them perfectly well.

It's that time of year when the festive lights will be dominating the, er, areas of social housing. As Chavscum seems to have demised, can anyone recommend a site which will be featuring the tackiest creations of our less-employed fellow citizens?

Tim#3

Yup, you read that right. I have helped design several other acoustic products with them (intercompany projects - I designed some of the electronics, but not for the Mosquito) which easily output in exceed of 100dB (@1m) whilst drawing just a couple of mA from the supply. I suspect people have got confused with the decibel weightings.

The obvious issue is that this is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences (attempts to get it banned lead to it being far more reaching) – but – the user doesn’t have to operate it in the non-discriminatory mode; I suspect most will use only the HF mode.

It’s not in anyone’s interest to leave such devices on permanently, so why not call for a fair use policy instead of calling for legislation against their use at all? What of those who have a genuine problem with feral youths who loiter, is it right that the innocent/needy are needlessly forced to suffer?

"The mosquito has a very specific aim - to make it unpleasant for people to remain in a location. Simply ban all devices that have this sole purpose."

That would be good, would mean that kids using mobiles on busses would be banned as well, as that makes it unpleasant to stay in one place. Not he sole purpose but if the law is based on sole purpose all the manufactor has to do is come up with a bs non sole purpose, easy law to defeat.

If it moves along the yobs (sorry not allowed to use that any more, how about "behaviour challenged") people then all the better

Let's see, 4 beeps per second = 240bpm. Just bring along a drum machine and you've got yourself a rave. Are they still illegal?

The "anti-youth" version almost sounds (!) okay until you start thinking about it - what about dogs, often left tied up outside? And babies?

Barry Manilow is a bit harsh, I'd prefer Mozart but if that fails, Kiri Te Kanawa should see them off. If nothing else works, Mahler - but that would give me seizures, so only as a last resort.

I've read that painting street furniture pink is effective for obvious macho reasons.