"<Blank> concluded the interview by stating that even though he does not consider Mr. Jobs to be a friend, he (Mr. Jobs) possesses the qualities to assume a high level political position. It was <blank>'s opinion that honesty and integrity are not required qualities to hold such a position."
"He characterized Mr Jobs as a deceptive individual who is not completely forthright and honest. He stated that Mr. Jobs will twist the truth and distort reality in order to achieve his goals."
That's what all of the documents seem to be from. To be clear, the FBI wasn't keeping tabs on Jobs because they thought he was up to no good, it was the standard background check they do when someone is being considered for a high level government position.
Now the speculation starts as to who the people were that the FBI interviewed.
He was being considered to an appointment to the export council. Lots of testimonies about his out of wedlock child, drug use, and dishonesty. For and against. The FBI concludes in support of Jobs.
Also, in 1985 he received blackmail for one million dollars or 4 bombs. It's right at the end.
And why would you ever ever release information on vetting ok Steve is dead but all the people who where interviewed are not and neither are Steves family.
Would you like to read a recently deceased loved ones warts and all developed vetting report - what public interest is served by this.
It is also open to abuse by muck raking hacks I sure Guido Fawlks would love to see the files on Polly Toynbees (Guardian journalist) dad (who was best mates with Burgess - one of the cambridge spy ring)
So a little more information from this document about the Presidential Appointment that was being considered:
The president was George Bush senior, and the appointment was "President's Export Council" (not Senate-confirmable) - and this was happening while he was President of NeXT.
Jobs was aware of the possibility and indeed had filled in his details on the "Questionnaire For Sensitive Positions" for it.
He stated that he had not used or dealt illegal drugs in the past five years (of interest due to his speaking in favour of LSD).
In the interview with the FBI Jobs also stated that "during the period of approximately 1970-1974 he experimented with marijuana, hashish and lsd. This was during high school and college and he mostly used the substances by himself." p.48
"On February 25, 1991, <redacted> Security Clerk, Status and Inquiry Branch, DISCO, Columbus, Ohio, was personally contacted and she advised she located the following security clearance in their files identifiable with the appointee, STEVEN PAUL JOBS, SSAN: 549-94-3295:
Top Secret clearance dated November 3, 1988, based on a Background Investigation by the Defense Investigative Service dated August 30, 1988. This clearance terminated July 31, 1990, and the employing agency is:
"He belonged to no organizations other than the New York Athletic Club however he had never been in the New York Athletic Club and knew nothing with regard to their membership policies."
Why was he a member of the New York Athletic Club? Did someone give him a membership as a gift?
(At the time, he did own an apartment at 146 Central Park West in New York City. [Edit: I didn't know that either. It was stated in the paragraph directly above the one mentioning the NY Athletic Club.])
My favourite snippet: "Several individuals questioned Mr. Jobs' honesty stating that Mr. Jobs will twist and distort reality in order to achieve his goals."
So far my favorite: "He added that the Appointee lives within his means financially, however, his means are considerable and the Appointee is worth at least 100 million dollars."
It's easy to live within your means if you're worth 100 million dollars I guess. Unless you are Elton John or Nicolas Cage.
This is outstanding reporting requesting and staying on the request for information, and it's a fascinating look at Jobs and the government process of vetting White House appointments in 1991.
Note that they are still obsessed with the idea of anyone belonging to or contributing to the Communist Party and even checked if had relatives in foreign countries who might have been Communists (they couldn't find any).
I also particularly like the comments from people who knew him in the background check documents--not always a flattering picture, that's for sure (but we knew that).
When I was applying for permanent residency in 2003, this question also came up as part of my interview. I had briefly been a member of a small radical left organization in Canada, back when I was 18 or so - and since I didn't know how in-depth the background check would be, I decided it'd be best to disclose it.
Paraphrasing from memory:
Interviewer: "So, tell me about this thing."
Me: "Stupid kid stuff. I was in college."
Interviewer: "So you don't believe this stuff any more?"
Me: "No, I've made my peace with capitalism."
And that was that.
I came away with the impression that (at least for people from countries lacking a near-term history of guerrilla warfare) this was largely a formality.
One of my favorite tidbits from "The Best And The Brightest" is that Dean Rusk, President Kennedy's nominee for Secretary of State, had to fill out a security questionnaire like this one, and to the question, "Have any of your relatives been part of an organization whose purpose was to subvert the government of the United States?" he answered "yes" because both his grandfathers had fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War.
To expand on liber8's point, the "red scare" and such seems funny and unreasonable now, but it's important to remember that during the cold war, the USA and the Soviet Union were very much enemies.
To put it in another way, would we think the FBI was out-of-bounds today if background checks today included determining if the person being vetted (or their family members) were associated with a terrorist organization? As much as most of us would consider the "terrorism" threat overblown, we'd accuse the FBI of gross negligence if an Al-Qaeda operative made it into a position in the US government.
It seems so strange now, but remember, the Berlin wall only fell in November 1989. Even in 1991, the communist threat was still very much on people's minds.
> Note that they are still obsessed with the idea of anyone belonging to or contributing to the Communist Party and even checked if had relatives in foreign countries who might have been Communists (they couldn't find any).
Their continued focus upon past drug use is also anachronistic. I have not yet read the the document all the way thought, but so far they have mentioned it no fewer than a dozen times.
The FBI's priorities seem to be... dated. I wonder if they are still thus.
I don't know how to check this myself, but are the redactions flattened, i.e. so they cannot be removed, or are they just shapes on a another layer drawn over the relevant areas, i.e. is the redacted data still recoverable by editing the pdf?
It wouldn't be the first time a "redaction" turned out to be no more than a mere obfuscation in practise.
They are flattened: The FBI prints out files, redacts them, and then scans them back in. A number of federal agencies do this, really making it a pain to search through documents.
The most interesting thing in these documents is among the last few pages which appear to be fingerprints (presumably SJ's) lifted from a telephone receiver at SFO. I wonder why? Can't just ask the guy for his prints?
EDIT: it appears from further reading that they're related to a bomb threat involving him at SFO. They're labeled as "misc notes on extortion at Apple."
I enjoyed reading this. Sometimes I watch too many cop shows and think that I want to become a detective. Then I read reports like this, and realize that 99% of police work is producing reports like this one. You may get to interview the occasional reference, but you're probably not going to be getting into many gunfights.
I feel mislead by fictional television programs :)
Watch The Wire. Most realistic portrayal of police work I've ever seen. Lots of watching suspects and gathering string, putting the pieces of the puzzle together slowly over a season of television, dealing with disfunctional organizations and a realistically low number of gunfights.
Pg 43- "[REDACTED] commented that, although he does not consider Mr. Jobs to be a friend at this time, he considers Mr. Jobs to be a successful individual because he can delegate tasks to individuals."
The confusing thing about this lot is the redundancy. They got at least 15 people to make statements, but it looks like multiple SA's interviewed the same people and they all said pretty much the same thing (with the exception of the one dude who thought integrity and honesty weren't prerequisites for a job in the government). Does this mean all of these people had multiple visits from different field agents? That must have been incredibly tiresome. And is there some kind of special cut'n'paste they do to end up with practically the same language in every report? Or are they just recycling the same information over and over.
Well if someone changes their story, that's suspicious. Some people feel intimidated or trusting or shy or outspoken on different days, when approached by different agents.
As to character, this is far more revealing than that sanctioned bio. I found the bio to be biased: the author never failed to use "genius" but as far for negative qualities, they were brushed aside.
Roughly 40 interviews in this pdf, from close associates, friends, classmates, co-workers, and industry colleagues. Not for profit; only meant to give an accurate depiction. And people seem to have been very honest also; maybe the interviewer being the FBI and probably confidentiality promised as well. I find roughly 60% of the people say he's morally and ethically questionable.
The documents toward the end are interesting. At first I thought, "wtf they sent out field agents to dust for his fingerprints?" But a few documents later and apparently he and a couple others at Apple where victims of a bomb threat and the fingerprints where of the suspect. Haven't finished reading Isaacson's book so not sure if this was in there. Otherwise (from my cursory read) nothing else was new or unexpected.
[+] [-] johngalt|14 years ago|reply
"<Blank> concluded the interview by stating that even though he does not consider Mr. Jobs to be a friend, he (Mr. Jobs) possesses the qualities to assume a high level political position. It was <blank>'s opinion that honesty and integrity are not required qualities to hold such a position."
[+] [-] mrleinad|14 years ago|reply
Yep. Looks like he's the man for the position.
[+] [-] siglesias|14 years ago|reply
Betting it's him.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...
[+] [-] morisy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feralchimp|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scott_s|14 years ago|reply
That's what all of the documents seem to be from. To be clear, the FBI wasn't keeping tabs on Jobs because they thought he was up to no good, it was the standard background check they do when someone is being considered for a high level government position.
Now the speculation starts as to who the people were that the FBI interviewed.
[+] [-] shimon_e|14 years ago|reply
Also, in 1985 he received blackmail for one million dollars or 4 bombs. It's right at the end.
Nothing post 2000.
[+] [-] Aqua_Geek|14 years ago|reply
to the President's Export Council.
[+] [-] alphamerik|14 years ago|reply
On the first page it looks like in '07 two documents were destroyed, also from '85 there is a report from a bomb threat.
[+] [-] mjwalshe|14 years ago|reply
Would you like to read a recently deceased loved ones warts and all developed vetting report - what public interest is served by this.
It is also open to abuse by muck raking hacks I sure Guido Fawlks would love to see the files on Polly Toynbees (Guardian journalist) dad (who was best mates with Burgess - one of the cambridge spy ring)
[+] [-] corin_|14 years ago|reply
The president was George Bush senior, and the appointment was "President's Export Council" (not Senate-confirmable) - and this was happening while he was President of NeXT.
Jobs was aware of the possibility and indeed had filled in his details on the "Questionnaire For Sensitive Positions" for it.
He stated that he had not used or dealt illegal drugs in the past five years (of interest due to his speaking in favour of LSD).
[+] [-] nutjob123|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] munin|14 years ago|reply
Top Secret clearance dated November 3, 1988, based on a Background Investigation by the Defense Investigative Service dated August 30, 1988. This clearance terminated July 31, 1990, and the employing agency is:
PIXAR San Rafael, California"
[+] [-] fiatpandas|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvkel|14 years ago|reply
If you've read the book, it's no surprise to see "distort reality" written here. Still, it's eerie (but understandable) that the FBI dives this deep.
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troymc|14 years ago|reply
Why was he a member of the New York Athletic Club? Did someone give him a membership as a gift?
(At the time, he did own an apartment at 146 Central Park West in New York City. [Edit: I didn't know that either. It was stated in the paragraph directly above the one mentioning the NY Athletic Club.])
[+] [-] joshaidan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unreal37|14 years ago|reply
It's easy to live within your means if you're worth 100 million dollars I guess. Unless you are Elton John or Nicolas Cage.
[+] [-] joshaidan|14 years ago|reply
...then reality sinks in, and just maybe... maybe there was some other force at work in all those keynote presentations. :)
[+] [-] rsmiller510|14 years ago|reply
Note that they are still obsessed with the idea of anyone belonging to or contributing to the Communist Party and even checked if had relatives in foreign countries who might have been Communists (they couldn't find any).
I also particularly like the comments from people who knew him in the background check documents--not always a flattering picture, that's for sure (but we knew that).
[+] [-] gyardley|14 years ago|reply
Paraphrasing from memory:
Interviewer: "So, tell me about this thing."
Me: "Stupid kid stuff. I was in college."
Interviewer: "So you don't believe this stuff any more?"
Me: "No, I've made my peace with capitalism."
And that was that.
I came away with the impression that (at least for people from countries lacking a near-term history of guerrilla warfare) this was largely a formality.
[+] [-] ArbitraryLimits|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jordan0day|14 years ago|reply
To put it in another way, would we think the FBI was out-of-bounds today if background checks today included determining if the person being vetted (or their family members) were associated with a terrorist organization? As much as most of us would consider the "terrorism" threat overblown, we'd accuse the FBI of gross negligence if an Al-Qaeda operative made it into a position in the US government.
[+] [-] liber8|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] revscat|14 years ago|reply
Their continued focus upon past drug use is also anachronistic. I have not yet read the the document all the way thought, but so far they have mentioned it no fewer than a dozen times.
The FBI's priorities seem to be... dated. I wonder if they are still thus.
[+] [-] sjtgraham|14 years ago|reply
It wouldn't be the first time a "redaction" turned out to be no more than a mere obfuscation in practise.
[+] [-] morisy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] culturestate|14 years ago|reply
EDIT: it appears from further reading that they're related to a bomb threat involving him at SFO. They're labeled as "misc notes on extortion at Apple."
[+] [-] niels_olson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|14 years ago|reply
I feel mislead by fictional television programs :)
[+] [-] quux|14 years ago|reply
One of the best TV shows ever made IMO.
[+] [-] adestefan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiecki|14 years ago|reply
I wonder who that woz?
[+] [-] wbhart|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blario|14 years ago|reply
Roughly 40 interviews in this pdf, from close associates, friends, classmates, co-workers, and industry colleagues. Not for profit; only meant to give an accurate depiction. And people seem to have been very honest also; maybe the interviewer being the FBI and probably confidentiality promised as well. I find roughly 60% of the people say he's morally and ethically questionable.
[+] [-] canes123456|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samwillis|14 years ago|reply
...
5 - Left a job for other reasons under unfavorable circumstances
Answered:
Date: 09/85
Code: 5
Employer: Apple Computer"
[+] [-] shimon_e|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] annon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jshort|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shimon_e|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrishenn|14 years ago|reply
AP did a report last year showing how ineffective FOIA and similar laws are: http://hosted.ap.org/interactives/2011/foia-global/
[+] [-] philwelch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blafro|14 years ago|reply