Last week, news came out with details of the FBI files used
in a background check of Steve Jobs. Apparently,
the government can release these files after the subject dies, with the exception
of certain redacted text sections preserving the identity of some of the other
subjects within the investigation or participating officers.
Notes on the Released File
Wired posted an article with the entire file in
PDF format here. The PDF is 191 pages long. Analytical types may find this very
interesting.
The Letter that authorized the investigation is
included in PDF Page 160. This letter
was from the Director of the FBI and is dated February 21, 1991. According to the FBI website, the
Director in 1991 was William S.
Sessions. This was almost 21 years
ago.
President Bush I was considering appointing Jobs
to a position on the President’s Export Council. The PEC website (here) has the following stated purpose:
The President's Export Council
serves as the principal national advisory committee on international trade. The
Council advises the President of government policies and programs that affect
U.S. trade performance; promotes export expansion; and provides a forum for
discussing and resolving trade-related problems among the business, industrial,
agricultural, labor, and government sectors.
The first paragraph of the FBI Director's letter is as follows:
Bureau has been requested to
conduct a Level III background investigation of Mr. Jobs for a presidential appointment
to the President's Export council, which does not require Senate confirmation.
This seems straightforward enough. The second and third paragraphs describe some
of the procedural requirements of the investigating officers:
Field Offices are reminded that
the investigative status of a background investigation (BI), all deadlines and
the position for which the appointee is being considered shall not be disclosed
to any interviewees. If during the course of· the investigation, interviewees
provide the nature of the position, that information is not to be further
divulged outside the FBI. Inquiries by
interviewees concerning the nature of the position are to be handled as set forth
in MIOG, Part II, Section 17-5 (5). Appointees making inquiries regarding the
status of their BI are to be referred to the client agency.
Conduct investigation in
accordance with guidelines set forth in airtel to all offices dated 11/29/90,
captioned "Changes in Special Inquiry (SPIN) Background Investigations (.BI)
and Procedures".
The fourth paragraph is completely redacted.
Here is the fifth paragraph:
Appointee is described as born
on February 24, 1955 in San Francisco; California; has SSAN 549-94-3295;
resides at [redacted text] and is currently president of NEXT, Incorporated,
Redwood City, California.
The next paragraph gets more into the meat of what they
are looking for, which includes some instructions for those performing the
various interviews.
Appointee will be required to
make decisions concerning policy and personnel matters; therefore, during
interviews, determine if appointee has expressed or manifested any bias or prejudice
against any individual or group based upon sex, race, color, religion, national
origin, handicap or age. Determine if appointee
lives within his financial means. Also determine if appointee uses illegal drugs
or abuses alcohol.
Note that this section does not set forth requirements of
the candidate, but sets forth the scope of inquiry, probably to be used in the
process of assessing the candidate. If
we break out the categories in an orderly fashion, we can determine the scope
as follows:
·
Find any evidence of bias or prejudice for
the following categories:
o Sex
o Race
o Color
o Religion
o National origin
o Handicap
o Age
·
Find out if the candidate lives within his
financial means.
·
Find out if the candidate uses illegal drugs.
·
Find out if the candidate abuses alcohol.
The next
paragraph seems to imply the purpose of these subjects:
Investigation should receive immediate attention and receiving
offices should telephonically advise FBIRQ of any derogatory information
developed, confirm by teletype, and record pertinent interviews relating to
derogatory information on FD-302s.
So, the officers
are looking for derogatory information, and they fully intend to record such
derogatory information on form FD-302S.
The next paragraph states that the officers need to
collect all information available on the candidate for the previous ten years. If there are any gaps in the findings, the
gaps must be investigated.
Receiving offices note that the
last ten years of appointee's life must be accounted for and, if during the
course of investigation unexplained or unaccounted for gaps are identified,
leads should be directed to the field office covering appointee's current
employment to have appointee contacted and to have his activities during
specific periods identified.
There is a section in the letter entitled “Leads.” The first paragraph of this section is as
follows:
San Francisco: Immediately
interview appointee in accordance with MIOG, Part II, Section 17-5.6 and will
report results on an FD-302. At an
absolute minimum, the FD-302 should clearly set forth the appointee's responses
to those questions labeled a-m under Section 17-5.6 cited above. Determine dated and place of birth of
daughter, [text redacted] Also determine who her mother is and interview her or
set lead. [2 ½ lines of text
redacted]. Obtain comments from Mr. Jobs
concerning and past/current drug use and his termination from Apple Computers.
So, the instructions are to look for information
concerning Jobs’ illegitimate daughter that he fathered with his girlfriend. Again, it seems they are looking for
scandalous information.
Sidebar into the FBI Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines (MIOG)
Per the instructions from the letter in the section
above, I took the time to find FBI MIOG Part II Section 17-5.6 questions
a-m. This particular section was not
easy to find, and it was somewhat difficult to get the exact PDF file
downloaded. (It is amazing that the FBI
just publishes their playbook online for the entire world to see.) The section is as follows:
(a) Completeness and accuracy of the SF-86. The majority
of the interview should not be spent reviewing the SF-86. In most cases, it has been reviewed by FBIHQ
personnel for completeness.
(b) Personal and
business credit issues, including, but not limited to, repossessions,
delinquent student loans, debts placed for collection and bankruptcy. (See Part
II, 17-5.8.)
(c) Unpaid tax obligations. To the best of his/her knowledge,
is the applicant current on all federal, state and local tax obligations. Has
he/she ever made back payment" of any such tax? This includes, but is not limited to, income
taxes, medicare taxes, social security taxes, and unemployment taxes. If tax
delinquencies or back payments are identified, determine type and amount (original
and current) of tax owed/paid, tax year(s) covered, efforts and/or problems in
paying the tax. Do not conduct any
further investigation concerning federal tax delinquencies or back
payments--FBIHQ will provide the information directly to the client agency
which will consult directly with the IRS if necessary. For state and local tax delinquencies or back
payments, immediately notify FBIHQ. If instructed
to do so by FBIHQ, set forth appropriate leads to field offices to verify the
information' provided by the applicant.
(d) Civil suits' as plaintiff or defendant, including divorces.
Identify issues litigated.
(e) Any involvement in criminal matters as suspect or
subject or any criminal charge, arrest and/or conviction.
(f) Any denials of/employment and/or dismissals, particularly
in the Federal sector. Include reasons.
(g) Any contact with representatives of foreign countries.
(h) Details of professional
complaints or any nonjudicial disciplinary action, e.g., bar association
grievances, better business complaints, student or military disciplinary proceedings.
Equal Employment Opportunity complaints,
etc.
(i) Business/investment circumstances' that could or have
involved conflict of interest allegations.
(j) Details of any psychological counseling with psychiatrists,
psychologists, other qualified counselors or others.
(k) Any prescription drug or
alcohol abuse, illegal drug use, to include marijuana and participation in
drug/alcohol counseling/rehabilitation programs, during applicant's entire
adult life (since age 18). Identify all
drugs used, when used, duration of usage, amount of drug used, place where drug
was used (public or private setting), how the drug was obtained, whether or not
applicant has provided drugs to anyone, if applicant has purchased or sold drugs,
others having knowledge of applicant's drug use.
(l) Memberships in
organizations whose policies restrict membership on the basis of sex, race,
color, religion or national origin. Determine
if, in fact, the membership of the organization includes minorities
(Presidential appointees, U.S. Bankruptcy, Special Tribunal, and U.S. Magistrate
Judges only). If it is determined that a
candidate has been a member of such an organization within the most recent
five-year period, determine the candidate's role, for example, as a policy-making
officer, in such an organization; determine if any steps have been taken by the
candidate to alter official or covert restrictive admissions policies; and ascertain
the candidate's personal viewpoint toward such policies. Any organizations that are determined to have
potentially restrictive/discriminatory admissions policies shall be checked in field
offices' indices for pertinent references.
(m) Any involvement in any
organization which advocates the use of force to overthrow the U.S. Government,
or any involvement in the commission of sabotage, espionage or assistance of others
in terrorism.
This list is quite thorough. It is also amazing in some of its implicit
political implications.
Back to the Released FBI File on Jobs…
The second paragraph under “Leads” reads as
follows:
San
Francisco: Insure at least fifteen persons knowledgeable concerning appointee
are interviewed. Check Better Business
Bureau concerning any complaints that may have been lodged against him or his
companies. Through records and interviews, determine reason for termination
from Apple Computers. Obtain details of listed lawsuits through appointee and
court records, Determine dispositions and if appointee was ever personally
named as a defendant. Contact the United States Attorneys' Offices wherever
appointee has lived or worked as an adult to determine if any indication
appointee has been involved in a matter handled by the U. S. Attorney’s Office
(either criminal or civil, in closed or current files).
So, the officers are to talk to at least 15 people in San
Francisco.
This is the end of the meat of the letter from the
Director of the FBI.
Throughout the FBI files, there are a few themes repeated
from the several interviews with relatives and associates of Jobs:
·
Jobs’ departure from Apple Computer
·
Jobs’ legal issues with Apple Computer
·
Several people commented on Jobs’ drug use
from his college days in the 1960s which included marijuana and LSD.
·
Several questioned Jobs’ honesty.
·
One or more brought into question Jobs’ sense
of reality and he being able to distort reality to achieve his goals.
·
Jobs had a daughter out of wedlock.
·
Jobs did not provide for his daughter for several
years, but in recent years has become more supportive.
Commentary
For any high position within the government, we
are probably better off with a detailed investigation as described in this FBI
file. However, is it prudent that these
files are released after the subject is dead?
Some of this information is extremely private and contains commentary
from former lovers and former associates who may not have an unbiased view of
the subject. Is this appropriate to
release? The authorization letter from
the Director explicitly states that one of the goals is to find derogatory
information.
On the other hand, we do not want our agencies to
run amok without some oversight on these matters. That which is hidden can be abused –
especially with such a powerful agency as the FBI.
Perhaps, looking at this from another angle, this
may be the price to pay for the ambition in wanting to participate in high
positions within the government. One
gets a thorough background check, complete with all the gossip, lies, truth,
and everything else including the kitchen sink within the file, with the full
knowledge that once one dies, this information can be released to the
public. The trade-off could be seen as
the price of admission to play in the government Big Leagues. The problem with this angle is that many
friends, associates and family members will be affected by this information,
and perhaps they have no control over the release of this information.
Perhaps the public is now similar to a voyeur with
the release of this information. Are we
better off knowing this, or is this information harmful to our souls as in we
really do not have a right to know these things from a complete stranger? Perhaps if this person did indeed assume a
position of power and authority within the government, then we may be
enlightened toward whether we deem his person trustworthy or not. But, Jobs apparently did not assume this
position, but we still can get our hands on this stuff. Is this right? Maybe not.
But, perhaps this is the price we pay to live in a society with some
degree of government oversight. It is an
interesting question for political science.
No comments:
Post a Comment