Big Brother is watching - with millions of "eyes"...

[Preacherman]

From the Independent, UK (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=480364):

Big Brother Britain, 2004

Four million CCTV cameras watch public. UK has the highest level of surveillance

By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent
12 January 2004

More than four million surveillance cameras monitor our every move, making Britain the most-watched nation in the world, research has revealed.

The number of closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras has quadrupled in the past three years, and there is now one for every 14 people in the UK. The increase is happening at twice the predicted rate, and it is believed that Britain accounts for one-fifth of all CCTV cameras worldwide. Estimates suggest that residents of a city such as London can each expect to be captured on CCTV cameras up to 300 times a day, and much of the filming breaches existing data guidelines.

Civil liberties groups complain that the rules governing the use of the cameras in Britain are the most lax in the world. They say that, in contrast to other countries, members of the public are often unaware they are being filmed, and are usually ignorant of the relevant regulations. They also argue that there is little evidence to support the contention that CCTV cameras lead to a reduction in crime rates.

Barry Hugill, a spokesman for the human rights and civil liberties organisation Liberty, said: "This proliferation of cameras is simply astounding. The use of CCTV has just exploded in the last few years, and what is terrifying is that we are alone in the world for not even having a debate about what it means for our privacy."

Professor Clive Norris, deputy director of the Centre for Criminological Research in Sheffield, presented the new research at an international conference on CCTV at Sheffield Universityon Saturday.

Professor Norris conducted a study in 2001 which predicted that the number of cameras would double from one million to two million by 2004. But his most recent study concludes that there are now "at least" 4,285,000 cameras in operation - double his earlier prediction.

There are no official government figures for the number of CCTV systems in Britain, but Professor Norris used a detailed study of surveillance cameras in London to calculate his figure.

The research formed part of a European-wide URBANEYE project on the use of CCTV.

Professor Norris said: "We are the most-watched nation in the world. One of the surprising findings was how much more control there is in other countries, such as America and France, compared to Britain.

"Other countries have been much more wary about CCTV, because of long-held concepts such as freedom of expression and assembly. These seem to be alien concepts in here."

The use of cameras to film people in the street is banned in Germany, Canada and several other countries. But it is accepted practice in Britain, which is alone in not having a privacy law that protects people against constant surveillance. The Data Protection Act states that the public has to be informed that CCTV systems are in operation, and be told how they can exercise their legal right to see their own footage. But civil rights groups said many councils, shops and businesses were failing to provide this information, and they estimated that up to 70 per of CCTVcamera operators were breaking the rules.

Some shopping-centre security guards use the cameras to track "socially undesirable" people, such as groups of teenage boys or rough sleepers, around stores, and then eject them even if they have done nothing wrong.

Professor Norris warned: "The use of these practices represents a shift from formal and legally regulated measures of crime control towards private and unaccountable justice."

Footage from the cameras has also been passed to newspapers and television companies without people's permission. Professor Norris said: "CCTV is generally seen as benign rather than as Big Brother-style surveillance.

"We need to have a much wider debate about exactly what CCTV is doing in terms of our privacy and our society.

"It is about much more than crime. It enables people to be tracked and monitored and harassed and socially excluded on the basis that they do not fit into the category of people that a council or shopping centre wants to see in a public space."

Over the past decade, the Home Office has handed out millions of pounds in grants to police forces and councils to install CCTV systems in the belief it will reduce and prevent crime. But Mr Hugill said: "All that CCTV does is shift the crime to another area for a bit, and then it returns. If you asked most people, they would rather see the Government spending the money on more police officers than on installing cameras, which do not appear to make much difference anyway."


And in a related article (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=480355):

How average Briton is caught on camera 300 times a day

By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent

12 January 2004

Keep smiling - by the end of today your image may well have been captured on more than 300 surveillance cameras,mostly without you knowing it.

Walk out of the house and a street CCTV system may be watching. Cameras can pick you up driving to work or on the train; your office may be under surveillance - your bank certainly will. Go to a shopping centre and your face will be stored dozens of times. Your local restaurant will record you picking up your takeaway and the leisure centre will snap you working out.

Surveillance cameras were first introduced to Britain in the 1950s when they were used to control traffic in major cities and towns. The use of CCTV really expanded in the late 1990s with the deregulation of planning processes, which made it easier for councils, shops and businesses to install cameras.

As crime - and fear of crime - became a major issue, John Major's government gave millions of pounds in Home Office grants to police forces and councils to install CCTV systems. Big grants for surveillance systems have continued under Tony Blair, particularly since the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

Barry Hugill, of the human rights group Liberty, said: "It has been the catch-all solution for government, councils and police - you get criticised for rising crime, so you put in some CCTV. It is something visible you can point to when you are asked what you are doing about crime. The two assumptions about CCTV have been that it reduces crime and that if you are not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.

"This is incredible really, because there is no real evidence that it does reduce crime, and in Europe and America there has been real debate about people's right to privacy.Britain has more cameras than any other, anywhere else, but we are not even having a debate about the rights and wrongs of it."

Countries such as America, Canada and Germany have strict rules on where CCTV systems can be installed and how images of the public can be used. But it was only with the introduction of the Data Protection Act in 2000 that any legal controls for CCTV were put in place in Britain.

Under the law, there should be signs informing people that they are being filmed, and giving details of how to exercise the right to see footage of your own image. Before installing systems, councils or businesses must have a "legitimate basis" for cameras, such as preventing theft.

This means, for instance, that a council using CCTV to protect a municipal car park can only use the footage to help in a criminal investigation and should not pass it on to a third party, such as a newspaper, or use it for other reasons.

But civil liberties groups say regulation of CCTV is not strong enough and the rules are regularly broken. Liberty estimates that up to 70 per cent of surveillance systems in Britain are illegal in some way.

Professor Clive Norris, who carried out the latest assessment of CCTV coverage in Britain, said: "Often there is no sign that you are being filmed and no information on who to contact to see your footage. In some cities CCTV systems are being used as a way of social cleansing.

"A group of teenage boys in a shopping centre will be followed round by cameras simply because of their age and gender, not because they are doing anything wrong. Security guards will spot a tramp on camera and eject him from the centre because he looks scruffy.

"The argument always goes that individual privacy has to be weighed against the benefits to the community, but privacy should be an absolutely fundamental right."

There have been reports of security companies selling CCTV footage of people having sex in the street and last year, a British man was awarded £7,800 in damages after footage of him attempting suicide was given to newspapers and television companies. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Geoffrey Peck's privacy had been violated after Brentwood Council in Essex passed film from their surveillance cameras to the press.

Mr Peck, 47, had tried to slash his wrists in Brentwood high street in 1996. He had become severely depressed after losing his job and learning his partner was terminally ill. He was found and led away by police but not charged with any crime. However, Mr Peck said his life was "shattered" when the council used the footage to publicise the success of CCTV cameras in preventing crime.

Even the crime reduction argument is now being seriously questioned. A Home Office study in 2002 found that more than half the CCTV schemes in city centres, housing estates and public transport have had no effect on the crime rate. Other research concluded that street lighting was seven times more effective than cameras in reducing crime.

Mr Hugill said: "I think if you asked most people, they would rather see a bobby on the beat than have cameras trained all over the street."

WAYS TO WATCH YOU

GILLETTE

Packets of Gillette's Mach 3 razor - a favourite target of shoplifters because they are small but expensive - were fitted with microchips in supermarket trials last year. Every time a packet was picked up, the chip activated a small camera in the "smart shelf", which photographed the customer. Although Tesco insisted the exercise was for stock control and that "products are tagged, not customers", the microchips - called Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) labels - remain active over a range of five metres once the product leaves the store.

OYSTER

Oyster, the pre-paid smart card which allows travellers to glide through Tube ticket barriers and on and off buses, is not as seamless as it appears.

Every time the card passes over one of the 16,000 sensors, it sends out a signal recording the holder's whereabouts. Civil rights groups are concerned that data, which Transport for London says is designed to "improve the journey planning process", will be available to the police.

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has used surveillance technology to enforce his congestion charge scheme, and Oyster is being considered as the model for a London Citizen Card, enabling everything from library access to benefit claims.

LOYALTY CARDS

Loyalty cards caught on in the 1990s, with all the main supermarkets launching their own version to reward regular customers with discounts and prizes, according to how much they spend. The idea was not a new one - for years, shoppers at the Co-op received stamps which entitled them to dividends. But by making an item-by-item note of every shopping basket, the store built up a profile of each shopper's tastes and could target them with offers.

Sainsbury's rebranded Nectar card, above, which can be used in other outlets, including Debenham's, has 11 million household members but Boots Advantage card is the market leader with 15 million holders.

VERIPAY

The most advanced application of RFID, a microchip implant which can be used as a credit card, was launched in November by US firm Advanced Digital Solutions. A subdermal chip, the size of a grain of rice, is surgically implanted between the elbow and shoulder, and activated and powered by an instore reader device. This, the manufacturers claim, offers "a much more secure, tamper-proof and loss-proof solution." But campaigners in the US have warned that, if widely adopted, VeriPay could end up "creating the infrastructure for potential government surveillance".

 

[jimpeel]

They'd never do that here ... would they ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8504-2004Jan11?language=printer

Air Travel Database Plan Is Set To Advance
U.S. Seeks Passenger Records to Rate Risk

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 12, 2004; Page A01

Despite stiff resistance from airlines and privacy advocates, the U.S. government plans to push ahead this year with a vast computerized system to probe the backgrounds of all passengers boarding flights in the United States.

The government will compel airlines and airline reservations companies to hand over all passenger records for scrutiny by U.S. officials, after failing to win cooperation in the program's testing phase. The order could be issued as soon as next month. Under the system, all travelers passing through a U.S. airport will be scored with a number and a color that ranks their perceived threat to the aircraft.

Another program will be introduced this year that seeks to speed frequent fliers through security lines in exchange for volunteering personal information to the government.

The two new initiatives will augment a system introduced last week to fingerprint and photograph millions of foreign visitors on arrival in the United States.

Privacy and consumer advocates worry that both programs could be discriminatory because they subject airline passengers to different levels of scrutiny. Certain travelers, such as non-U.S. citizens, could face additional questioning under the program known as CAPPS 2, or the second version of the Computer Assisted Passenger PreScreening Program, some organizations say. Business travelers who typically pay high prices for their seats will likely get an easier pass through security in the "registered traveler" program.

Privacy advocates say they are most concerned about CAPPS 2, which would replace the airlines' existing computer screening system. The TSA believes the current system is based on old assumptions about terrorists, flagging passengers, for instance, who paid with cash or bought one-way tickets. Passengers targeted for additional screening commonly find an "SSS" or "***" designation on their boarding pass.

The TSA said the new computerized system will provide a more thorough approach to screening passengers. It will collect travelers' full name, home address and telephone number, date of birth and travel itinerary. The information will be fed into large databases, such as Lexis-Nexis and Acxiom, that tap public records and commercial computer banks, such as shopping mailing lists, to verify that passengers are who they say they are. Once a passenger is identified, the CAPPS 2 system will compare that traveler against wanted criminals and suspected terrorists contained in other databases.

The two-step process will result in a numerical and color score for each passenger. A "red" rating means a passenger will be prohibited from boarding. "Yellow" indicates that a passenger will receive additional scrutiny at the checkpoint and a "green" rating paves the way for a standard trip through security. Also factored into one's score will be intelligence about certain routes and airports where there might be higher-rated risks to security.

Although it is unclear how many passengers would fit into each category, the TSA said its best estimation is that 5 percent of the traveling public will be flagged yellow or red, compared with an estimated 15 percent of passengers who are flagged under the current version of CAPPS 1.

The registered traveler program, also known as "trusted traveler," has been a favorite of the airline industry since the terrorist attacks in 2001. The first leader of the Transportation Security Administration declined to pursue the idea, saying he worried that terrorists in "sleeper cells" could establish themselves as trusted residents over a period of years and later exploit their status to hijack planes.

Now under new leadership, the TSA is to begin testing the program at selected airports with $5 million in Congressional funding. Officials say the program could enhance security because the pool of those who need to be assessed would be reduced by the background checks each passenger would undergo. The agency declined to say how the program would work except that it would be voluntary and that registered passengers would not skip security screening altogether.

"It's not as though the person who goes through the checkpoint won't be going through a basic level of screening," said David M. Stone, the TSA's acting administrator.

But privacy experts are skeptical. Registered traveler is "going to create two classes of airline travelers," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that opposes both programs. Registered traveler, he said, "has no security benefits. Terrorists will learn one way or another to game system."

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security started a visa-tracking program that the ACLU and other groups also deemed discriminatory. International airports and ports began digitally fingerprinting and photographing foreign visitors from certain countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America when they enter the country on a visa, although most European countries are exempt from the program.

"These kinds of dragnet systems are feel-good but cost-inefficient," said Richard Sobel, a privacy policy researcher at Harvard Medical School. "The government would do much better using resources to better identify people and deter people who might cause some harm than to use resources devoted to the 99 percent of people who are innocent."

Under one proposal advocated by the major U.S. airlines, passengers who submit an application to the TSA would receive a special card or other identification, if they're approved. At the airport, they would show the card at the security checkpoint or ticket counter and submit to a handprint or fingerprint to verify their identity. Then, the passenger could walk through a checkpoint area dedicated to members of the program.

The airline industry argues that a registered traveler program would not create a class system but would simply reduce wait times for all passengers. "The thing that really frustrates people is not the fact that someone goes through [the security line] more quickly," said Jim May, chief executive officer at the Air Transport Association, the airline industry's lobbying organization. "It's the people who don't prepare themselves and go through security and tie up the whole line. They're the people who really aggravate those people who are trying to catch a plane."

In the push forward on CAPPS 2, U.S. officials said the TSA will soon begin forcing the airlines to turn over their passenger reservation lists. No airline responded to the agency's initial request for the documents last fall. U.S. carriers have been reluctant to turn over the data because of negative publicity association with the program.

The TSA's first airline partner to test CAPPS 2, Delta Air Lines, backed out of the agreement after privacy advocates put up a Web site encouraging passengers to boycott the airline. The European Union, whose passengers would also be rated and screened, have said the system would violate EU privacy laws, but it has allowed the TSA to use passenger data for testing purposes.

The final blow came in September last year, when JetBlue Airways was sued in several states by passengers after the airline admitted it had turned over passenger data for a military project related to aviation security. The TSA has since been unable to find an airline to help the agency test CAPPS 2 and might now have to resort to coercion to get the reservation data.

Homeland Security officials said some elements of CAPPS 2 and the U.S. VISIT program for fingerprinting and photographing foreigners will overlap because both systems compare passengers against the same terrorist and criminal watch lists. The U.S. VISIT also aims to ensure that visitors do not overstay their visas. U.S. officials said they are considering merging the two programs.

Nuala O'Connor Kelly, the chief privacy officer at Homeland Security, said if the databases are merged, the government would impose strict rules about which agencies can use the passenger information and how it could be used.

"We want these programs to be efficient to the extent it makes them more efficient to have them rolled together, we will be looking at that," Kelly said.

But Kelly acknowledged that there will be several hurdles to clear. The U.S. government has not said how long it will keep data on U.S. VISIT travelers. Information on most passengers screened by CAPPS 2 can be held only for "a matter of days," she said.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

 

[sm]

Books Ending...

1984 - Orwell


"The voice from the telescreen was still pouring forth its tale of prisoners and booty and slaughter, but the shouting outside had died down a little. The waiters were turning back to their work. One of them approached with the gin bottle. Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother. "

The End

 

[Delmar]

Would you like your soylent green-burger with fries?

 

[TarpleyG]

I have a question. Who's watching all these 4 million screens coming from the 4 million cameras? Do they honestly think they can see all of it or are they just hoping to catch a percentage of people not doing as they are told? This really makes me sick.

GT

 

[agricola]

a counterpoint

 

[Marko Kloos]

Ah...I was waiting for the "if it only saves one child" argument.

Counter-counterpoint, agricola:

Exactly what crime was prevented with the footage pictured above?

 

[agricola]

CCTV does not prevent crimes - but it does greatly assist those who wish to solve them.

That image is the last known picture of James Bulger, who was abducted and killed by two boys on Merseyside in 1993. That CCTV tape directed Police attention towards the suspects and led to their eventual conviction; without it its arguable that (unless one of the boys flipped) they would have been caught. CCTV has also been used in thousands of other investigations of serious crimes to nail the perps.

For instance, last year Westminster Council installed one of the worlds finest CCTV suites covering the area between Picadilly and the Strand. A month after it was opened, a gang of thirteen youths beat up and robbed a couple of tourists on one of the streets south of Leicester Square. They then went off and celebrated in a branch of McDonalds in Swiss Court. They then left, straight into the arms of the waiting Police, from whom they were delivered to Court a couple of days later. All of that had been seen on CCTV, was disclosed at the earliest possible stage to the defence, and led to guilty pleas - which is probably why legal rights groups hate it so much.

 

[TheEgg]

Yes Agricola, we are sure CCTV cameras have helped solve numerous crimes. But where do you draw the line?

I am sure that installing a CCTV camera in every room of everyones residence and business in the entire UK will help solve many more crimes. But is this a solution to be desired? I don't think even you would advocate such a thing.(I hope!)

The problem is always where to draw the line between personal privacy and governmental snooping.

I for one am willing to live with the fact that a society that draws the line further on the side of individual human rights must live with more "chaos" than one which draws the line further toward the "government gets to see everything" side of the argument.

The ease with which police can solve crimes is not to me a very persausive argument. As you pointed out yourself, the two cases you cited were not stopped by the cameras, just solved. The little boy is just as dead, and the tourists are just as "mugged". Solving the crimes was a good thing, but it is not the only thing to be considered.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

CCTV does not prevent crimes

Agricola, I will be reporting your disagreement with The Party immediately.

Their position is clear:

So who is telling the truth Agricola? You or them?

And if CCTV doesn't prevent crimes, and we can't defend ourselves, what do we do? Get down on all fours and hand Mr. Rapist the vaseline?

 

[Russ]

This is why I don't pick my nose or rearrange other parts of my body in public!

 

[harpethriver]

We have 2 different areas to discuss, one private the other public. If private businesses wish to engage in this type of surveillance, then it is their right to do so. If the government wishes to do this on public property, it is our right to tell them not to do so. This, however, is rather simplistic as well as idealistic. All too often "government" and "will of the people" seem to be mutually exclusive.

 

[femoralis]

I'm not sure why it matters to be videotaped in public. It's not more a violation of "privacy" to be taped than it is to be seen by all the other people around you any day.

 

[Marko Kloos]

That image is the last known picture of James Bulger, who was abducted and killed by two boys on Merseyside in 1993.

I'm familiar with the case, agricola, which is why I asked that question. In my opinion, and by your admission, CCTV does nothing to prevent crimes. It merely shifts crime (the smart criminals move to a place where there are no cameras), or it just aids in prosecution (since even a monitored CCTV rarely ever leads to the prevention of a mugging or other crime in progress.) More efficient prosecution and good evidence against the perpetrators are good things, but CCTV does nothing at all to increase the safety of the population, if you define "safety" as "safeguarding potential victims from an attack", and not just "being able to better prosecute muggers and rapists after the fact."

 

[rock jock]

More efficient prosecution and good evidence against the perpetrators are good things

So by your own admission there is a benefit to CCTV's. By logical extrapolation, one could say that if their use in successful prosecutions becomes widespread, it would have a deterrent effect on crime. Afterall, criminals prefer to do their nefarious deeds in the dark or night, or where they will not be seen.

 

[Marko Kloos]

So by your own admission there is a benefit to CCTV's. By logical extrapolation, one could say that if their use in successful prosecutions becomes widespread, it would have a deterrent effect on crime.

It would make no difference. Like I pointed out above, it would merely shift some of the crime. Some criminals would move somewhere else to rob/rape/steal cars, but the crimes would still be committed.

There is some benefit to more effective prosecutions, but I am not sure I want to trade off my privacy to make a prosecutor's job easier. Like others have pointed out, there is a line somewhere, unless you want to advocate a camera on every street corner and in every room of every house. Sure, it would make prosecutions extremely easy, but it would totally eliminate privacy, and greatly increase government control. Everybody draws the line somewhere, and mine is a good bit back from where the UK .gov has moved their CCTV use already.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

So by your own admission there is a benefit to CCTV's

There's also a benefit to limiting people's ability to move around outdoors without a police escort.

The question then becomes: are the trade-offs worth the benefit.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

The Government recently decided to relaunch their earlier poster campaign to tie into the release of Lord of the Rings, Return of the King.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Whoops -- rockjock, here's a better example.

There's a provable benefit to providing free abortions for any middle-school child who asks for them (increased attendance at school, more wayward girls who graduate, less strain on the welfare system, etc). There's a down-side, however.

Let's discuss the down-side in relation to the upside. "If it saves just one child's life" is the argument. Is it worth being enslaved in response for that one life? How about being watched day-to-night? What about extending that observation into everyone's home as well (every room monitored, illegal to block a camera)?

Is it worth it?

 

[jimpeel]

Question: LOOKING FOR SERIOUS ANSWERS

Does anyone see a tie-in with this type of surveillance and the 1996 Telecommunications Act; which requires that all transmission signals be digital after a date certain? The difference between analog and digital is that digital is very easy to make into a two-way communication.

Not a conspiratorialist. Just curious about your thoughts on this.

 

[rock jock]

Like I pointed out above, it would merely shift some of the crime. Some criminals would move somewhere else to rob/rape/steal cars, but the crimes would still be committed.

This statement assumes that crime is a zero-sum game, i.e., that crime rates remain fixed, no matter what type of preventative efforts are made. This is an illogical conclusion. Even criminals factor in a risk/benefit ratio into their chosen vocation.

The question then becomes: are the trade-offs worth the benefit.

No, Derek, they are not. I am not an advocate for CCTV's, but I would like folks like Marko to be intellectually honest on this sort of thing. There is a real benefit of using these types of privacy-invading tools in crime prevention and prosecution, but they are nonetheless not worth the freedom that we would give up AND this is the type of argument that we should be making, not that they are ineffectual. One day soon we will be facing this type of challenge in the U.S. and we need to be prepared with a strong defense.

 

[Iain]

Strangely jim I heard an 'expert' talking about mobile phones the other day and how they are potentially of great use to terrorists. He was saying that since the UK went digital it is now much harder to 'snoop' as the system is very secure. Are you still on analogue systems for your 'cell phones' over there?

 

[Verbal]

I asked an ex-telecoms guy about the mobiles.

The original mobiles were analogue and you just had to tune into the frequency to listen to the conversation. The digital mobiles have encryption devices but these are limited in size by law making them easy to crack for the security services.

So the state can monitor your mobile calls, on the internet, phone calls etc.

My english friends don't seem to care about CCTV using the terrible argument of "its not a problem if you have nothing to hide". I love scaring them by reminding them who invented the concentration camps.

 

[jimpeel]

St Johns

We have analog and digital. Digital will be the wave of the future.

Cell phones aside, I was wondering what the ramifications of digital hardwired into the home would be. It would be a bit weird to make love to the wife with a television in the room that could also transmit audio or video in the opposite direction for the entertainment of those who monitor the monitors.

I'd always be wondering if I was good enough for them to stop and watch; or if they'd change the channel for better fare.

 

[Art Eatman]

Today? Tomorrow?

Operator: "Thank you for calling Pizza Hut. May I have your..."

Customer: "Hi, I'd like to order."

Operator: "May I have your NIDN first, sir?"

Customer: "My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's 6102049998-45-54610."

Operator: "Thank you, Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland Drive, and the phone number's 494-2366. Your office number over at Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number's 266-2566. Which number are you calling from, sir?"

Customer: "Huh? I'm at home. Where d'ya get all this information?"

Operator: "We're wired into the system, sir."

Customer: (Sighs) "Oh, well, I'd like to order a couple of your All-Meat Special pizzas..."

Operator: "I don't think that's a good idea, sir."

Customer: "Whaddya mean?"

Operator: "Sir, your medical records indicate that you've got very high blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National Health Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice."

Customer: "Damn. What do you recommend, then?"

Operator: "You might try our low-fat Soybean Yogurt Pizza. I'm sure you'll like it"

Customer: "What makes you think I'd like something like that?"

Operator: "Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your local library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion."

Customer: "All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones, then. What's the damage?"

Operator: "That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four kids, sir. The 'damage,' as you put it, heh, heh, comes $49.99."

Customer: "Lemme give you my credit card number."

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash. Your credit card balance is over its limit."

Customer: "I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your driver gets here."

Operator: "That won't work either, sir. Your checking account's overdrawn."

Customer: "Never mind. Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready. How long will it take?"

Operator: "We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45 minutes, sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick 'em up while you're out getting the cash, but carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be a little awkward."

Customer: "How the hell do you know I'm riding a bike?"

Operator: "It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your car got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid up, so I just assumed that you'd be using it."

Customer: "@#%/$@&?#!"


Operator: "I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a July 2006 conviction for cussing out a cop."

Customer: (Speechless)

Operator: "Will there be anything else, sir?"


Customer: "No, nothing. oh, yeah, don't forget the two free liters of Coke your ad says I get with the pizzas."

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us from offering free soda to diabetics."