The FBI's files on Steve Jobs
muckrock.com
muckrock.com
"<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."
Yep. Looks like he's the man for the position.
Instead this happened.
Apple now worth more than Google and Microsoft combined http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3572487
A lot of people said that about him: it was his famous reality distortion field.
Betting it's him.
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.
to the President's Export Council.
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)
The Freedom of Information Act does not release any and all documents, there are plenty of privacy restrictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(Uni...
Its the results of a TS Clearance Vetting FFS. Do you think people are going to be open about some one if potentialy its going to be vomited over the internets whilst they are still alive.
Also, in 1985 he received blackmail for one million dollars or 4 bombs. It's right at the end.
Nothing post 2000.
On the first page it looks like in '07 two documents were destroyed, also from '85 there is a report from a bomb threat.
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).
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"
IIRC, the NSA bought a lot of NeXT systems, and he had to get a clearance for that too. Or maybe this was the same clearance.
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.
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.])
Maybe being allowed to buy a flat in there and membership of the club are somehow connected (the club seems to be an exclusive, expensive invite-only gentlemens' club)
I walked past that place a million times (used to live on 60th and Columbus, worked at 9 w 57th street.) Always wondered what it was.
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.
Generalizing somewhat: ghetto kid -> scholarship college athlete with a broad academic pass -> pro -> out on the street.
Yes, there is a somewhat broader range of experiences than just that. Still: sports stars generally burn bright, but very briefly.
It's a rollercoaster.
If I made ten times what I do, I'd probably be buying $500-$5000 gadgets just as frequently. If $100k didn't mean much to me then I'd probably buy a Tesla. If $20M didn't mean much to me then I might become a space tourist.
A more financially responsible person than myself would be likely to remain more responsible as they scale up, and a less responsible person would likely remain less responsible.
...then reality sinks in, and just maybe... maybe there was some other force at work in all those keynote presentations. :)
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).
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.
Maybe the FBI is being stodgy, but if someone has been addicted to certain illegal drugs (I know, I know, use doesn't mean addiction) that's one additional angle an "enemy" could use to exploit this person.
He also mentioned three general levels of clearance - classified, secret negative, secret positive. Negative is closer to a background check in style. Positive is the exhaustive fine-toothed comb.
If you state that you don't abuse alcohol or use drugs, but individuals associated with you state otherwise, that will merit additional investigation. If you committed a crime and lied about it, what else did you do? Sell drugs? Grow weed in your apartment? Hang out with drug dealers?
Anachronistic or not, using drugs is illegal. If you're hiding some dark secret, that can be used to coerce or otherwise compromise you, it's relevant.
Do you want the US representative to some trade organization selling the country out, because he doesn't want someone to find out that did something stupid in his 20s?
No, I'd much rather they do it for a fist-full of money.
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.
To put it slightly differently, it's not like asking if someone is associated with a terrorist organization, but more like asking if someone is associated with a Muslim organization.
Not that I'd care to throw out a blanket justification for any and all anti-Communist measures out there, mind you. But it's possible to downplay the threat excessively too.
Perhaps some forms of Anarcho-socialism could be argued to be both completely nonviolent (peaceful) and voluntary (nice). However any form of Communism calling for the abolition of capitalism, which asserts that others do not have the right to continue asserting claims to private ownership of capital independently, most certainly cannot be considered either.
(Excluding full-on no-government libertarians from the above under the assumption that organizing would be contrary to their beliefs.)
A russian friend of mine says the same was not true in Russia. They were aware of the cold war, obviously, but 'knew' that their leaders, no matter how incompetant or corrupt, would never initiate the exchange.
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.
It wouldn't be the first time a "redaction" turned out to be no more than a mere obfuscation in practise.
Probably not perfect, but better than nothing.
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 feel mislead by fictional television programs :)
One of the best TV shows ever made IMO.
The wire is still realistic, because it specifically follows a team doing a large drug investigation, rather than the general work of the dept. In the book, there are a lot more misc. trails that go cold, like you describe.
Our results may be cool, but the process certainly isn't; at least as far as other 'building' jobs look.
Both are filled with intellectual challenge. People who like problems are attracted to each. Although people who like problems and money might be more attracted to law!
I wonder who that woz?
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.
...
5 - Left a job for other reasons under unfavorable circumstances
Answered:
Date: 09/85
Code: 5
Employer: Apple Computer"
the interviews show that everyone that knew and worked with him thought he resigned. only when they interviewed jobs did HE say he was fired.
Firing a company founder is probably the last thing any publicly traded would do. It's just not done. You'd have sympathetic stockholders rioting, the neutral ones now pissed at you, and every last member of the board fired as well.
"When Ms. Greene’s firing was announced to investors the next morning, VMware’s shares plunged 24 percent, and the high-flying company was thrown into a tailspin from which it has yet to recover."[1]
Since her departure it looks like VMWare has changed from an engineering driven company to acquisitions driven.
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/technology/09vmware.html
AP did a report last year showing how ineffective FOIA and similar laws are: http://hosted.ap.org/interactives/2011/foia-global/
Highlighting travel to Japan shows how different things were in 1991.
Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?
A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.
-- One would assume that eventually all 999,999,999 numbers would be allocated and they'd have to either add a digit or start reusing them.
<BLANK> Described as a "former hippie" had at one time run an apple orchard in Portland, Oregon, in partnership with Steve Jobs.... Jobs was at one time part owner <redacted> of Timerland in Oregon, which included a mine.
The check brought up a 1984 shareholders lawsuit against Apple.
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/09/steve-jobs-1991-fbi-file...
"Are you or have you been a member of the Nazi party/movement" "Are you or have you been a member of a Communist Organization" "Have you been charged with or convicted of genocide"
Who would answer yes to those questions?
And the Communist party has a lot of members here.
I mean, who wants to get busted for lying to the US government? You don't know how detailed their background check is going to be - or whether they're ever going to do a more detailed one in the future.
I'm still down here almost a decade later, so obviously a 'yes' here isn't an automatic deal-breaker.
Did they spell "Macintosh" with a 'k' back then or did the FBI person spell it wrong?
The fruit is spelled "McIntosh".
There are absolutely fascinating. I wonder what "Level III - Full Field Investigation" means.
"In fact, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) found that in 2009, 38,217 individuals with an AGI of $1 million or more received more than $1.142 billion in Social Security benefits." That seems to show that those millionaires received ~$30k each/year from social security. There must be a cap in place if true.