I was walking home from dinner through a busy area of Athens this weekend when my friend stopped and said, “Do you guys hear that? It’s like a dog whistle or something.” At first, I didn’t hear anything except the people around me; but as we kept walking, I noticed—yes, there it was: a constant, piercing noise permeating the sound of the crowds nearby. WHAT is that? I wondered, speculating that it was, in fact, a dog whistle—until my friend pointed to a white, semicircular disc hanging from an awning and said, “Have you guys heard about those anti-loitering things?”
The walk home entailed a description of what I now know to be called “mosquitoes,” popular new security devices designed to dissuade teenagers and young adults from congregating in spaces such as parks and other public places. The devices work by emitting a high-pitched sound audible only to 15-25 year-olds (supposedly) and have proven effective in preventing loitering and vandalism. Available for use both privately and publicly, the devices have become a source of controversy at the local, national and international levels, with the human rights organization Liberty going as far as to condemn them as a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights—most explicitly Article 14, which prohibits discrimination. The claim here is that by targeting teenagers, a specific age group, use of the device is a form of ageism. In fact, the Mosquito’s online description even reads:
“The Mosquito, MK4 otherwise known as an anti loitering sound device, anti teenager alarm, teenager repellent or ultrasonic teenage deterrent. Call it what you will, but it is essentially a low power device that makes a pulsing sound similar to an alarm clock. This sound is just out of the range of an adults hearing, which is why it only bothers people under the age of about 25. The sound is not loud or painful, just highly annoying after a short period of time.”
Indeed, targeting a group of people solely based on their age does constitute the definition of ageism. The purpose of the Mosquito’s installation seems based on an assumption that a group of teenagers congregating together means trouble. But is this really the case? Does a group of friends hanging out at night in a public park absolutely mean drug use, vandalism or other illegalities? And even if it does, is a device which irritates, annoys and causes headaches the appropriate response? Even more frequent than the public use of Mosquitoes, private individuals have installed the devices to deal with annoying neighborhood kids who make noise and play music late at night in yards. These activities are disruptive but not illegal—do the neighbors have a right to install mosquitoes here?
Additionally, parents of young children have reported that their children aged younger than 15 are able to hear the noise. The experience is irritating and frightening, as the children do not understand what they are hearing. Moreover, we don’t know the effects that the device may have on hearing development for children who live near a mosquito that is regularly sounded at night. Since the Mosquito is a relatively new device with few legal restrictions, such unknown medical and health consequences are highly concerning.
Illegal loitering and vandalism are certainly a problem, especially in urban areas. But it seems that the installation of an anti-teenager, irritating, potentially dangerous device is not the appropriate response at the public or private level. Mosquito devices are both a symbolic and tangible attack on the well-being of teenagers, putting the maintenance of building exteriors and the assurance of quiet public areas ahead of citizens’ health. Additionally, the direct targeting of a specific age group is clear, recognizable ageism, thus constituting the validity of taking legal action to remove the sonic devices. Hopefully, local governments and city councils will respond to the complaints about the devices by opening a dialogue with the teens in their communities, and together the communities will strive to find a more equitable, safe way to deal vandalism, loitering and other community concerns without criminalizing teenagers for socializing.