21–30 of 1001 posts
What are the needs for concealed carry at Apple? For some reason this reminds me of Apple’s security team attempting to recover (by force) the lost iPhone 4.
It should not be so difficult for the head of security of the largest company on the planet to get a CCW permit. That is the problem. The system is so flawed, you have no choice but to play the game (bribe). You can't just not have a CCW in the position he holds.
How so? Unless you mean to claim Apple expects anyone hired for that position to knowingly break the law as part of having that position.
> Requested $75k of Apple tech to issue a CCW permit to the head of security, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just the cheaper (because there's a bunch of things more risky about it) equivalent of hiring a body guard. Why not?
I mean, you said why not yourself. There's a lot that goes into being a bodyguard that makes it quite different from allowing random employees to carry.
No. There isn't.
I used to work for a company that fielded body guards as one of their many services. Basically just have a pulse, don't have a criminal history, pass a fairly trivial interview that's designed to filter out people who think they're gonna be billy-badass or that it's gonna be an exiting job. There's a reason it doesn't pay well. Almost anyone can do it.
Driving a floor polisher was more lucrative and sucked less so I did that.
Apple’s security chief should be fired over this. But, this is common practice where there are ‘may issue’ CCW permits. Either have shall issue, or no issue. Having the sheriff decide just creates a valuable commodity.
If they do get fired, it will be as a scapegoat, probably with a large severance, and any company in the world would hire them up immediately.
Apple’s security chief should be fired over this. But, this is common practice where there are ‘may issue’ CCW permits. Either have shall issue, or no issue. Having the sheriff decide just creates a valuable commodity.
> He has overall responsibility for Apple’s ethics and compliance program including Apple’s Business Conduct Policy, governing the ethical and legal obligations of Apple’s Board, executives and over 130,000 employees around the world,
A delivery of 200 iPads as a bribe to get CCW permits makes me think it's more involved. Although this may be with his discretionary power, it's shocking to me that the donation was aborted as soon as warrants went out. I'd like to better understand what happened at Apple.
Beyond the problem of "may issue" permits you raise, I'd love to remove this kind of discretion for discovery. For example, when bringing charges like this the DA must be obligated to initiate discovery of the company documents to investigate how far reaching the problem may be (settlements can't begin to be negotiated until the DA completes discovery).
It should not be so difficult for the head of security of the largest company on the planet to get a CCW permit. That is the problem. The system is so flawed, you have no choice but to play the game (bribe). You can't just not have a CCW in the position he holds.
> You can't just not have a CCW in the position he holds. How so? Unless you mean to claim Apple expects anyone hired for that position to knowingly break the law as part of having that position.
Kudos to the Santa Clara DA for being willing to prosecute crooked cops in his own county. All too often DAs are afraid to proceed against local LEOs and justice is left undone even when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.
It should not be so difficult for the head of security of the largest company on the planet to get a CCW permit. That is the problem. The system is so flawed, you have no choice but to play the game (bribe). You can't just not have a CCW in the position he holds.
> You can't just not have a CCW in the position he holds. How so? Unless you mean to claim Apple expects anyone hired for that position to knowingly break the law as part of having that position.
The facts of the article seem to imply that the sheriff's office was blackmailing Apple. I am not sure I'd call this bribery, unless there was some reason the CCW permits should not have been issued (criminal conviction or some other risk). The Apple employee should have known better to agree to the quid pro quo, but I am not sure he should go to prison.
On one hand the CCW permit is for the personal benefit of the person receiving it. If the company needed armed staff, they could simply hire full-time armed guards. There is no reason head of security at Apple needs to be armed using a concealed weapon. They are not going undercover to bust smugglers or whatever.
On the other hand, the payment was to the Sherriff's office, not the sheriff himself. That makes it a lot less like bribery to me because it still benefits the government.
What makes it especially tricky is that it seems as though the Sherriff asked for the payment. If they did and provided official written documentation to Apple, that feels like a professional and real agreement to provide hardware to the government.
At the end of the day, what will make this bad for Apple's head of security is that he was personally benefiting from the Sherriff's actions by receiving favorable treatment for a CCW he didn't need, and used company hardware to get that favorable treatment.