Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Police Use of Acoustic Warfare Draws Ire of Civil Libertarians
PITTSBURGH — Police ordered protesters to disperse at the Group of 20 summit last week with a device that can beam earsplitting alarm tones and verbal instructions that the manufacturer likens to a "spotlight of sound," but that legal groups called potentially dangerous.
In this Thursday Sept. 24, 2009, file photo an unidentified person holds his ears to avoid sound coming from the Long-Range Acoustic Device approaching from left during clashes between protesters and Pittsburgh police in Pittsburgh during the G-20 Summit . Police dispersed protesters at the Group of 20 summit last week with a Long-Range Acoustic Device that emits a beam of earsplitting alarm tones that the manufacturer likens to a "spotlight of sound," but that legal groups called potentially dangerous. (AP Photo/Philip Scott Andrews, File) The device, called a Long Range Acoustic Device,
concentrates voice commands and a car alarm-like sound in a 30- or
60-degree cone that can be heard nearly two miles away. It is about two
feet square and mounted on a swivel such that one person can point it
where it's needed. The volume measures 140-150 decibels three feet away
— louder than a jet engine — but dissipates with distance.
Robert Putnam, spokesman for the manufacturer, San Diego-based American Technology Corp., said it's "like a big spotlight of sound that you can shine on people."
"It's not a sonic cannon. It's not the death ray or anything like that," Putnam said. "It's about long-range communications being heard intelligibly."
During the Pittsburgh protests, police used the device to order demonstrators to disperse and to play a high-pitched "deterrent tone" designed to drive people away. It was the first time the device was used in a riot-control situation on U.S. soil, according to American Technology and police.
Those who heard it said authorities' voice commands were clear and sounded as if they were coming from everywhere all at once. They described the "deterrent tone" as unbearable.
Joel Kupferman, who was at Thursday's march as a legal observer for the National Lawyer's Guild, said he was overwhelmed by the tone and called it "overkill."
"When people were moving and they still continued to use it, it was an excessive use of weaponry," Kupferman said.
Witold "Vic" Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania, said the device is a military weapon capable of producing permanent hearing loss, something he called "an invitation to an excessive-force lawsuit."
The operator of the device is usually behind it and not in the path of the focused beam of sound.
Catherine Palmer, director of audiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said 140 decibels can cause immediate hearing loss. But there's no way to know if anyone was exposed to sounds that loud without knowing how far away they were, she said.
Putnam and public safety officials said the complaints prove the device worked as designed.
"You have to put your hands over your ears and cover them, and it's difficult to throw stuff," said Ray DeMichiei, deputy director of the city's emergency management agency.
Police said they used the device last Thursday to issue prerecorded warnings to disperse when hundreds of demonstrators, including self-described anarchists, without a protest permit held a march that threatened to turn violent.
Aware of concerns about the volume, police were careful to use it about 12 feet off the ground mounted on a tactical vehicle, so no individual would be directly in its path or too close to it, Assistant Chief William Bochter said.
"The only way anybody gets hurt is if the deterrent is on full blast and they stand directly in front of it," Putnam said.
A regional counterterror task force bought four of the devices from American Technology using $101,000 in federal Homeland Security funds, DeMichiei said. Because the amplified message was prerecorded, police could be sure the protesters heard exactly the instructions police desired and have confidence those in the back of the crowd could hear, Bochter said.
Such devices also have military and commercial applications. Putnam said the primary purpose is to transmit specific orders loudly and clearly.
They have been used against protesters overseas, and police in New York threatened to use one during demonstrations near the Republican National Convention in 2004.
He said the city of San Diego uses them to instruct people to leave large sections of beach after festivals. It has also been used in SWAT operations.
In military applications, it allows ships to hail approaching vessels and determine their intent, the company says. Cargo ships use them to tell pirates that they had been spotted. When the pirates know they have lost the element of surprise, they will not attack, Putnam said.
Putnam said those complaining about the device have probably exposed themselves to sounds nearly as loud at rock concerts, and for longer periods of time. Walczak, the ACLU attorney, isn't buying the analogy.
"People don't flee the front row of a rock concert. Why would they be fleeing here?" Walczak asked. "Because it's loud, it's painfully loud."
- Posted in

19 Comments so far
Show AllThe excuses for using sound weapons are spurious, of course. One does not broadcast a loud non-linguistic sound to make one's words heard: it has the opposite effect.
The US tested a large range of crowd control weapons at G20, all weapons that they had surely used previously on live subjects.
They are testing public response, that of the demonstrators in part, but more critically that of the public.
If these weapons are not curbed by legal action, direct action in large groups will become far more difficult.
Fortunately if the sh*t actually hit the proverbial fan these "high technologies" would go down quicker than a humvee in baghdad
Orwellian, simply Orwellian.
I think you've hit on the best possible one-word summary: Orwellian. It's Orwellian indeed. Using this thing has to be unconstitutional (not that that matters!) if not also a crime against humanity.
It's this kind of escalation --using force against angry but non-violent citizens-- that will eventually compel the 'convulsion' Jefferson predicted. At some point, someone will build or buy some sort of rocket-propelled 'IED' and fire it at one of those damned sound cannons. And the crowd will cheer, and the arrogant cops will suddenly find that their badges and guns don't protect them because they've crossed the invisible line from symbol-of-law to symbol-of-oppression.
unconstitutional yes, but profitable...
What we feed children in schools is *worse* than unconstitutional, its criminal, but it sure is profitable!
Exactly. We've lost our right to free speech and to assemble. I wonder if Orwell would be happy or sad if he could realize how accurate his predictions have become.
"We've lost our right to free speech and to assemble."
BUT - you can still apply for a "protest permit".
Only if/when there's a fee for such application.
Actually, its funny.
140-150 dB @3 feet. From a flat plate radiator, outdoors.
As a drummer, I produce that kind of soundpressure frequently. And every disco and every rockband gets up in that neighborhood regularly. And they are indoors where the pressure doesn't dissipate. I hear boom-trucks driving by that are so loud that you can hear the parts vibrating off and the SPL inside is reaching 160 and more (I call these guys the Premature Deafness Club).
A little tip from experience, break the filters off of a couple (unsmoked) cigarettes and use them as earplugs. They cut the high-impact sound and still let you hear people talking.
And when they point that thing at you, get up and DANCE.
And be thankful that they are using this stupid waste of millions of dollars rather than water cannons and pump shotguns, AKA Riot Guns.
Napoleon squelched riots with grapeshot. The Union Busters used Riot Guns. The National Guard at Kent State used M1s. Count yourself blessed that all this does is squeal real loud.
no. don't think I'll count myself blessed at all...
Use of sound will lead to use of this:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Military_heat_ray_gun_zaps_60_0229.html
Doesn't matter M1 or intense sound, the fascist results are the same if not better with non-lethal tech
Problem with AP article:
The accoustic machine was just one tool used to oppress the voice of the demonstrators. This article almost sounds like it is a technical article that could be put in the Popular Mechanics magazine.
Israel has been using this technology for years:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/153672/israel_uses_sound_technology_on_rioters/
That was exactly my comment. The US is giving Israel the technology and/or importing it from them after it's been tested on the Palestinians. What an evil alliance!
The existance of this sound cannon, or it's legitimate use on , actual riots, is not so bad, though it should be set up so as not to ever cause permanent damage. However, the situations in which it is used are reprehensible. To me the rubber bullets, etc are probably much worse. Forget anybody doing anything violent, I predict soundproof anarchists.
Are you serious or just yanking our chain, dude?
A very tidy way to injure or kill protesters. Kind of like the way the Navy kills marine mammals with its underwater sonic devices.
More weapons for the police to riot with. Cell peace.
And here's one more thing we must be greatful to our Israeli friends for. After all, they were the ones who tested the sonic booms on the Palestinians - the scores of deaf children in Gaza can attest to that. Now, 'our' government knows that they can successfully turn them on their own sheeple, right here in the US. We must thank Israel for this success too.
Wow! Here I've been fighting against the use of sonar in the whale sanctuary and now, here it is used on humans. Unconscionable!