> There was a recent entry into a contest run by Bruce Sterling (via the
> Viridian list) that requested inventive conceptual-art-ish uses for tech
> that responds to [and thus necessarily parses and analyzes] speech, for
use
> in a conceptual art object. One entry that fits this thread was a phone
> that interrupted phone calls from telemarketers as soon as it "hears"
stock
> telemarketer phrases. It fires back such effects as an airhorn at 125dB,
> return offers of deals on ozone-hole insurance, slightly threatening
> comments noting that while the phone will not accept telemarketing calls,
> the telemarketer's number has been logged, and requests for dates to
> alleviate the owner's loneliness.
>
> I quite enjoyed the idea of such a snappy phone. At first I thought the
> airhorn was cruel -- after all, it's usually people my age and in my tax
> bracket doing the telemarketing work, and why should they go deaf just
> because they were stuck taking an already shitty job. Then I realized that
> very soon, the standard violent responses would be countered by
> filter/response subroutines in the telemarketers' phone systems, right?
>
This is funny, because it's true. When I had my senior project in college
one of my ideas was to build such a phone or at worse a dedicated computer
to answer the phone for me. I did some serious research into it: trying to
get the codes from the phone company that are used with the caller ID
system, voice recognition software, and my favorite was finding what noise
levels and frequencies would be best that would cause an automatic response
but not actual damage. Like getting the telemarketer to mess themselves,
something harmless. The phone couldn't handle the frequencies involved. I
was even thinking of just a simple in-line device that would have a button
on it that would transmit a sound downstream to the caller.
My professor quashed the idea.
Kevin Tarr
Trump high, lead low
