At CIA Starbucks, Even the Baristas Are Covert

An anonymous reader writes with this interesting story about what it's like to work at “Store Number 1,” the CIA's Starbucks. The new supervisor thought his idea was innocent enough. He wanted the baristas to write the names of customers on their cups to speed up lines and ease confusion, just like other Starbucks do around the world. But these aren't just any customers. They are regulars at the CIA Starbucks. "They could use the alias 'Polly-O string cheese' for all I care," said a food services supervisor at the Central Intelligence Agency, asking that his identity remain unpublished for security reasons. "But giving any name at all was making people — you know, the undercover agents — feel very uncomfortable. It just didn't work for this location."

Comments

What's so hard about using the time-honored

[Chromium_One]

... tradition of ticket numbers?!

Re:What's so hard about using the time-honored

[toejam13]

Came to say the same thing. How many different restaurants print your order number on your receipt, then call the number when ready? While more impersonal than calling names, it makes it easier since you can display a number on a screen. Also, numbers are more easily pronounceable than some names, and avoids the issue when two or more customers have the same name.

Re:What's so hard about using the time-honored

[pushing-robot]

They tried that, but the customers all fought for ticket number 7.

Re:What's so hard about using the time-honored

[Jstlook]

I think it would have been a great idea on the part of the supervisor to, rather than write their names on the cups, just give them each a name as they order. "Hi! Your name is Fred today, what can I get you?"

Re:What's so hard about using the time-honored

[pipedwho]

I am not a number, I am a free man.

Oops, my bad, I forgot we're talking about somewhere in the USA.

Re: What's so hard about using the time-honored

[devilspgd]

Better yet, go with "Bueller" and then leave without your coffee, leaving them calling Bueller, Bueller, Bueller.

Re:What's so hard about using the time-honored

[arglebargle_xiv]

There is nothing more annoying than:

1) Fake friendliness (if you care so much about my name try and remember it for next time since I tell you it on almost a daily basis)

2) People who can't pronounce my name

3) People who can't spell my name

4) People who use alternate spellings of my name without confirming the correct one (my name has 3 alternate spellings)

I get that all the time because of my European surname, I mean how hard can it be to pronounce Echsteinlefahrtengruber? With my Serbian wife I can understand it, Grzplstcknfltmrzovic can be a bit of a mouthful the first time you see it, but anyone should be able to get my name right.

Typical Government Hypocracy

[pubwvj]

Yet the government (FBI) objects to our desires for privacy (Apple & Google on-phone encryption).

Re:Typical Government Hypocracy

[VanGarrett]

Ah, but they know why they want their privacy, and are concerned that you might want yours for the same sorts of purposes.

Re:Typical Government Hypocracy

[Deadstick]

Hypocracy? That's awful. I'd hate to be ruled by hypos.

Re:Typical Government Hypocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Operational security is a concern for you on a daily basis?

Talk about hyperbole. No, operational security isn't a concern for even those at CIA Starbucks on a daily basis. The reason they don't like names or number tickers or anything else that could directly or indirectly produce a pattern that can track their actions because they're so very aware of how everyone else not part of their system is or can be directly or indirectly tracked through a pattern of their actions. Although I guess if the Chinese and Russians are doing the same thing as part of their systems, it's not wholly unwarranted to think they may end up being tracked.

Foreign states might try to coerce, corrupt, or disappear you?

It's not rampant paranoia because everyone really is trying to get them? No, it's still really rampant paranoia. The thought they they might (1) engage in some top secret op under a variety of aliases, (2) use another series of aliases with their Starbucks coffee, and (3) it's (2) that's the linchpin on how they were secretly poisoned or whatever is absurd. Why? Because (a) it's unlikely they'll be adequately tracked through operation (1), (b) even if they were it's unlikely they'd choose CIA Starbucks as the source of their plan to kill you, (c) even if they did, they don't need to rely upon an alias on a cup to determine it's your drink when your drink may well be unique enough, the person to poison you will likely verify it's actually you before adding the mix to the drink, and there's literally hundreds of ways to kill you that are less obvious (a name on a cup of a prominent dead person looks suspicious as would a tracking number if it's loudly spoken at any point) if you're trying to quietly assassinate a person.

No, this is all about some pretend thing in their heads that they're special enough to kill and yet smart enough to be hidden. The truth is most people are aware of how unimportant they are as a target and don't even attempt to hide themselves. But even those who try don't generally blend in very long--and by standards of the CIA, very long would be the rest of your natural life. The CIA/NSA/FBI all take advantage of this, have a certain level of loathing of the "sheep", and don't want to be placed into the same category because it fundamentally goes against their feelings of superiority of not being so "stupid".

Honestly, "operational security", "ongoing investigation", and "national security" are the words of cowards more often than a real and meaningful thing used to actual protect the populace at large. And I should know as an Anonymous Coward, right?

*Captcha: botulism

Re:Typical Government Hypocracy

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Foreign states might try to coerce, corrupt, or disappear you?

No, as an American citizen, my own government might try . . .

Re:Yeah So?

[russotto]

I can picture it now; they got a whole queue of people called "Bond, James Bond", "Jason Bourne" and "Jack Ryan". Hilarity ensues...

Yeah, just watch out for the one who asks for Kim Philby.

Re:Treasonous CIA gets more taxpayer money

[hey!]

Not to interfere with your nascent flame-war or anything but "self-funding" is not inconsistent with "getting more taxpayer money". First, they may get larger appropriations while at the same time running side businesses. Second, even if their appropriation were cut to zero, any money they make on the side becomes "taxpayer money."

One of the most fundamental principles of our form of government is that no executive branch agency can spend money without Congressional approval, no matter where that money came from. The reasons for this go back to the English Civil War. Charles I attempted to rule without calling Parliament, but since the Magna Carta English kings did not have the power of taxation; the House of Commons did. So Charles attempted an end-run by exploiting a fee that had been traditionally levied on coastal towns to pay for maritime protection in time of war. Charles's attempt to use "Ship Money" as a revenue source independent of Parliament was one of the key events leading to the Civil War, and was familiar history to the framers of the US Constitution.