3 ms·

Would this hurt people with cochlear implants?

martyvis 7y ago
Or any hearing aid? That said, hearing aids in particular employ circuitry specific tuned to only amplifier the desired sound and frequency range intended to be heard, modern ones having profiles for normal speech, congregations, music, etc.
- doomrobo 7y ago
  Microphones pick up harmonics of the input frequencies. So if the ultrasound white noise is a multiple of the human voice range, it'll get let through.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
rahuldottech 7y ago
Yes. > Yikes, please don't do or encourage using these in public - there are many accessibility devices (hearing aids, cochlear implants, etc.) which depend on MEMS microphones to function. > You could inadvertently make the world much worse for people who already have a difficult time of things. Imagine carting a cellular and WiFi and bluetooth jammer around outside of a Faraday cage - it's insanely irresponsible and inconsiderate. From the top comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22339548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22339548
- nonbirithm 7y ago
  It would be a loss if due to a critical need to protect privacy we end up inadvertently harming a group of people that are already at a disadvantage. I once knew a hearing-disabled person and the hardship it brought them affected nearly every interaction with them I had. For me that trade-off is not worth it. If the best channel to help the deaf listen clearly is also the best one for letting eavesdroppers listen clearly, then this is a problem best not handled with such a heavy handed solution - possibly not even a technological solution at all.
  - inetknght 7y ago
    > It would be a loss if due to a critical need to protect privacy we end up inadvertently harming a group of people that are already at a disadvantage. I once knew a hearing-disabled person and the hardship it brought them affected nearly every interaction with them I had. For me that trade-off is not worth it. We already do this by making so many things practically require internet access but then also not making things easily accessible to eg screen readers or text mode browsers
    - vages 7y ago
      Norway, where I live, has enacted laws banning inaccessible websites (with the exception of websites made by individuals). https://medium.com/confrere/its-illegal-to-have-an-inaccessible-website-in-norway-and-that-s-good-news-for-all-of-us-b59a9e929d54 https://medium.com/confrere/its-illegal-to-have-an-inaccessi... The law has been well-received both by the public and by businesses, with very few actual fines being issued, but many bad pages have been soft-forced into improvement. So it's actually possible, but will probably be much harder in the US, in which business, government and taxpayers/customers seem less aligned.
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  Thank you for quoting and linking to my comment here.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
saber6 7y ago
Do you really think that will stop dumbass techies?

Or any hearing aid? That said, hearing aids in particular employ circuitry specific tuned to only amplifier the desired sound and frequency range intended to be heard, modern ones having profiles for normal speech, congregations, music, etc.

doomrobo 7y ago
Microphones pick up harmonics of the input frequencies. So if the ultrasound white noise is a multiple of the human voice range, it'll get let through.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

rahuldottech 7y ago

Yes. > Yikes, please don't do or encourage using these in public - there are many accessibility devices (hearing aids, cochlear implants, etc.) which depend on MEMS microphones to function. > You could inadvertently make the world much worse for people who already have a difficult time of things. Imagine carting a cellular and WiFi and bluetooth jammer around outside of a Faraday cage - it's insanely irresponsible and inconsiderate. From the top comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22339548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22339548

nonbirithm 7y ago
It would be a loss if due to a critical need to protect privacy we end up inadvertently harming a group of people that are already at a disadvantage. I once knew a hearing-disabled person and the hardship it brought them affected nearly every interaction with them I had. For me that trade-off is not worth it. If the best channel to help the deaf listen clearly is also the best one for letting eavesdroppers listen clearly, then this is a problem best not handled with such a heavy handed solution - possibly not even a technological solution at all.
- inetknght 7y ago
  > It would be a loss if due to a critical need to protect privacy we end up inadvertently harming a group of people that are already at a disadvantage. I once knew a hearing-disabled person and the hardship it brought them affected nearly every interaction with them I had. For me that trade-off is not worth it. We already do this by making so many things practically require internet access but then also not making things easily accessible to eg screen readers or text mode browsers
  - vages 7y ago
    Norway, where I live, has enacted laws banning inaccessible websites (with the exception of websites made by individuals). https://medium.com/confrere/its-illegal-to-have-an-inaccessible-website-in-norway-and-that-s-good-news-for-all-of-us-b59a9e929d54 https://medium.com/confrere/its-illegal-to-have-an-inaccessi... The law has been well-received both by the public and by businesses, with very few actual fines being issued, but many bad pages have been soft-forced into improvement. So it's actually possible, but will probably be much harder in the US, in which business, government and taxpayers/customers seem less aligned.
justinjlynn 7y ago
Thank you for quoting and linking to my comment here.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

saber6 7y ago

Do you really think that will stop dumbass techies?