[revscat]

> 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.

[Duff]

They're looking for aberrant things that will lead them to compromising information. You get some leeway for the sins of the past -- provided that you disclose.

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?

[mikenon]

> 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.

[jordan0day]

Maybe, but the whole point of these interviews are to try to determine how susceptible a person is to being "turned", that is, blackmailed/bribed/forced against their will to working against US interests.

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.

[vacri]

I was told by the holder of a Secret clearance here in Aus that the interviews about background were largely about exposing potential blackmail levers and less about moral transgressions.

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.

[glhaynes]

Or even if they were particularly averse to friends/family members/church members/etc finding out about their use. I've known people who aggressively hid their (regular) weed smoking from their spouses. (Yeah, not exactly an optimal relationship, but it definitely happens...)