Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

morganhilltimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#91

Post by dang »

asciident wrote: post #72

I feel like the headline is misleading. The more straightforward headline would be that the sheriffs of Santa Clara county withheld concealed firearms licenses to multiple applicants unless they were offered bribes. It sounds like this has been going on for years. Apple's security chief was one of those applicants who paid the bribe to get the permit. But putting "Apple" in the title is more clickbaitey.

This comment was merged from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25192826, which has a different title.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#92

Post by danbolt »

yalogin wrote: post #78

Wow the sheriff’s office is asking for bribes openly like this? I am really surprised. I wonder how common bribes are at that level of the government.

I'm not an American, but Sheriffs are typically locally elected, correct? I'm curious how that can depend from county to county.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#93

Post by bilbo0s »

yalogin wrote: post #78

Wow the sheriff’s office is asking for bribes openly like this? I am really surprised. I wonder how common bribes are at that level of the government.

Well, probably less and less common since the advent of Civil Forfeiture. So, progress I guess? /s

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#94

Post by asciident »

paxys wrote: post #87
bilbo0s wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his point is that the world's largest company is not actually involved in bribery. It's just kind of there as window dressing in this case.

From the article: > Santa Clara County alleges that Mr Sung held back issuing concealed weapons permits to Apple's security team, until Mr Moyer agreed to donate $70,000 worth of iPads to the sheriff's office. So they most definitely are.

It's like if immigration officers don't let you in the country unless you give them a case of liquor. You give them the liquor, and are caught. The story should be that the immigration officers are corrupt and demanding bribes, rather than you, an employee of Hacker News or whatever, being caught bribing immigration officers.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#95

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #82

Seems a bit odd that Apple's Thomas Moyer is getting charged or at least that the headline suggests he instigated the whole thing. Unless Moyer was trying to bypass some process or law to obtain the permits, it sounds like the county police are more at fault for demanding the bribe and Moyer just made the bad call of agreeing to pay it. The article notes that the county/police had been doing this racket for years so…

The challenge is that it was (I'm pretty sure) within the sheriff's discretion to deny these permits in the first place. So while the sheriff's office was surely wrong to demand a bribe, there was no reason Moyer had to agree to pay it either.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#96

Post by SrslyJosh »

yalogin wrote: post #78

Wow the sheriff’s office is asking for bribes openly like this? I am really surprised. I wonder how common bribes are at that level of the government.

Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#97

Post by sandworm101 »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #82

Seems a bit odd that Apple's Thomas Moyer is getting charged or at least that the headline suggests he instigated the whole thing. Unless Moyer was trying to bypass some process or law to obtain the permits, it sounds like the county police are more at fault for demanding the bribe and Moyer just made the bad call of agreeing to pay it. The article notes that the county/police had been doing this racket for years so…

Those who pay bribes for non-essential special treatment are as much criminals as those who ask for bribes. This guy has serious resources at his disposal and is allegedly willing to pay bribes. One must wonder if he has paid any others. I have little sympathy.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#98

Post by paxys »

Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period. It isn't an "unfortunate situation" or anything else that people are calling it. It also doesn't matter who initiated the bribe. The employee, and potentially the company itself, absolutely need to be charged and prosecuted for it.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#100

Post by mmastrac »

microtherion wrote: post #60
function_seven wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. What an awful situation to find yourself in. With the law enforcement demanding an exchange. You have to gamble one way or the other. Either you report the bribery attempt to the DA's office, and suffer the retaliation that ensues from snitching on the DA's friends; or you go along with the bribe and suffer the prosecution from the DA. How do you know which one to choose? Are you sure the DA will side with yo…

> How do you know which one to choose? In Apple's case, you could refer back to Apple's business conduct training program, a self directed online class which ALL of us are REQUIRED to pass ANNUALLY, and which states in no uncertain terms that NOTHING of value may be paid to a government official without prior approval from higher up, and describes precisely such "facilitation fees". And if the article is to be believ…

> Apple's then General Counsel once created a backdated paper trail for a fictitious meeting of the executive team

I forgot about this - the Apple options backdating scandal:

https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-70.htm

Post reply on HN