Comment by ISL | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ISL | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It seems like a corner-cube would do a serviceable job in this context and might be lighter, as long as the reflector is substantially larger than the wavelength of the sound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector

Wikipedia claims that the LRADs operate at ~2.5 kHz, which corresponds to ~13 cm wavelength. If a corner-cube is about the size of a protest sign, it might be sufficient? As a rule of thumb, if it is about as big as the LRAD device itself, it'll probably have some efficacy. The more-directional the LRAD is, the more effective the corner-cube will be.

In Seattle, at least during "normal" protests, there are restrictions on the materials used in constructing protest signs (no wood bigger than 1", etc.) in order to limit the extent to which they can be used as weapons. One ought to be able to pretty-readily test whether or not foam-core-board corner-cubes (or any design) are effective reflectors with relatively low-intensity sound sources.

Protesters should make a parabolic reflector with the focus about 50ft out. Pretty sure cops would stop using these things instantly

Parabolic reflectors require alignment and they bring incident energy to a focus no matter what.

Focusing the energy of an instrument that is designed to approach dangerous sound-intensity levels is certain to make the situation more dangerous. Non-violent action is predicated on the idea that hurting anyone, including an aggressor, is counterproductive. A corner-cube reflector won't hurt an LRAD operator any more than the LRAD operator is hurting others. A parabolic reflector could.

If the golden rule isn't sufficient motivation to avoid a focal instrument, perhaps friendly-fire will be: A parabolic reflector will always bring parallel waves/rays to a focus at the focus. If the reflector is more than a focal-length inside a crowd, it is going to destroy the ears of a protestor.

Like glass bottles that start fires in the Australian Outback by concentrating sunlight, anything that concentrates sound energy in an environment with an LRAD is a recipe for unintended consequence.

Once the police have used LRAD the protest has ceased being non-violent. Defending yourself is completely in-bounds unless you have a martyr complex.

A protest can remain non-violent in the face of violence. Modern non-violent protests have succeeded against well-armed and violent opposition. I'd argue the world is better for it.

When and where violence should be resisted with violence is a question for the ages, perhaps with an answer that varies with time and circumstance.

I suspect that for the protests in America today to succeed, taking the highest-possible road of non-violence will yield the greatest dividend. The real battle is playing out in the minds of a multitude of quiet observers. The city streets are just one stage.

Is having a parabolic reflector a violent action? The only way it could hurt someone is by reflecting the pain they were trying to put on you.

If I had armor that ricocheted bullets back at the shooter, I wouldn't consider myself culpable if someone who tried to shoot me shot themselves.

There is a difference between a parabolic reflector and any other reflector. Reflectors that concentrate energy make the damaging effects more intense.

It is difficult to find an analogy -- it is as if the LRAD operator has thrown a punch and the reflector turns that punch into the stab of a rapier. If and only if the reflector is properly aligned will the redirected-and-concentrated beam have the reflector-bearer's desired effect. If not, someone else may get harmed. The reflector-bearer must accept responsibility for the change in consequence between the punch and the rapier.

There is a third option -- one can readily design reflectors that disperse the energy or generically attempt to reflect it upward. Those are the tools of true pacifists.

> Is having a parabolic reflector a violent action? The only way it could hurt someone is by reflecting the pain they were trying to put on you.

Yes, violent retaliation is still violence.

Violence only in retaliation and/or self-defense may be a valid approach to protest in some circumstances, but it's not non-violent protest.

You have a strange definition of 'retaliation'. If you throw a ball at a brick wall and it bounces back and hits you, the wall didn't retaliate or act in self-defense. The entire impetus and result is 100% on you. The same applies here.

The first use of “retaliation” should be “retaliation and/or self-defense”, like the other. I was staying a broader principle which applies to but extends beyond the immediate case.

I will agree that the proposed device might (if targeted appropriately) be more defensive than retaliatory, though the fact that it only causes harm to the focussed-on target if someone attacks it doesn't make it purely defensive or non-retaliatory, in fact, if not carefully targeted it makes it quite indiscriminate retaliation.

This looks like self-defense to me. It literally doesn't do anything unless you are attacked.

"Non-violent protest" is not rooted in good will because you don't want to hurt your opponent. The idea is to let yourself be beat up in order to win the media war and gain more sympathy/supporters. The whole point of this device is to not be hurt, which defeats the principle behind non-violent protest, so you might as well hit back with force. God knows the cops don't care if they permanently blind you, destroy your hearing or kill you.

> The idea is to let yourself be beat up in order to win the media war and gain more sympathy/supporters.

It is not. The idea is not to provide political cover for violent escalation by the establishment. Now, if that escalation nevertheless occurs, one response is to make lemonade out of those lemons, but it's not the goal of nonviolent protest.

Two thoughts on the subject from Dr. King:

“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.”

“Nonviolence is absolute commitment to the way of love. Love is not emotional bash; it is not empty sentimentalism. It is the active outpouring of one’s whole being into the being of another.”

The point is to sway the very opponent who is harming you, to convince them that hurting you is wrong. It takes great strategy, tactics, and courage. The point is not to be a martyr, it is to create change that makes a difference.

>Pretty sure cops would stop using these things instantly

prepared to get shot and/or charged with "assaulting a police officer"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com