Conspiracy news! Bush might have been prompted during the recent debate. There are some reasonable arguments for that not being the case, and some reasonable arguments for, but these aren't why I'm posting. Rather, I'm posting because someone in the comments on that article suggested "why use a detectable interferable radio earpiece when you can use tight-beam audio which couldn't be intercepted?"
But then, my own brain suggested, if you can transmit audio directly into someone's head without them knowing where it originates from or having to wear a device, using this hypersonic sound technology, why would you use it to prompt your own speaker? Surely the ideal political use for such technology is to distract the opposing speaker and make them seem insane?
How would the victim complain about such activity? "My opponents were putting voices in my head whenever it was my turn to speak"? There is absolutely nothing the victim could do about it unless they could somehow spot and indicate the source, and any complaint they make would only seem to confirm their insanity. Depending on what's transmitted, it seems like there'd be a reasonable chance that the victim wouldn't even be certain themself that they weren't going insane and hearing voices. There are lots of nice non-specific distracting sounds one could transmit, too. Fill the speaker's head with coughing, or laughing, or the sound of mumbling political audience. Fill their head with zombies saying "braaaaiiins" or leprechauns saying "burn them all".
I look forward to the day when politicians, advertisers and protesters all adopt this idea, and it eventually reaches the point where everyone just ignores the voices in their heads, like spam. Take that, consciences - there'll be no whitelists for brain-voices.
[03:25]
|