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

131–140 of 1001 posts

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

#131

Post by crazygringo »

vlovich123 wrote: post #118
crazygringo wrote: post #104

Two things, to be clear -- 1) The sheriff's office initiated/required the bribe, it's not like Apple's head of security was trying to bribe, they were being extorted 2) It's Apple's head of physical security, not software security (since it's not clear at first) I'm curious -- if a county sheriff's office demands bribes, what is the correct legal course of action in the US? Do you bring it to county court? To the gov…

It takes two to tango and those giving bribes are not exempt from anti-bribery laws (as you can tell since the giver also got indicted). I’ll also note that things like this are explicitly called out in the anti-corruption training every single employee of a large US corporation undergoes (or at least the US-based employees).

Sure but there's still a world of difference depending on who initiates the corruption. Apple's not trying to actively corrupt the police department, the police department is acting corruptly.

It's a serious offense on both sides, but far more serious on the part of the sheriff's department.

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

#132

Post by henryfjordan »

crazygringo wrote: post #104

Two things, to be clear -- 1) The sheriff's office initiated/required the bribe, it's not like Apple's head of security was trying to bribe, they were being extorted 2) It's Apple's head of physical security, not software security (since it's not clear at first) I'm curious -- if a county sheriff's office demands bribes, what is the correct legal course of action in the US? Do you bring it to county court? To the gov…

The article says that the iPads never changed hands because the Attorney General's office started investigating during all this. It is likely that what happened is another applicant was also asked for a bribe at around the same time and reported it to the Attorney General of California. You can report a myriad of crimes directly to the AG's office: https://oag.ca.gov/contact

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

#135

Post by rmk »

_ph_ wrote: post #109
rmk wrote: post #70

Help me understand how this bribery works. If someone "donates" iPads to "the Sheriff's Office", does this mean that they can be taken by people who work there (for example, Sung could sell them on and pocket the cash)? What is the mechanism here? The cut-and-dry case would be asking for a cash bribe and pocketing it, so is this a way of making the bribe look like something else?

Whether the recipients of the iPads had direct personal benefits or they were just donated for the department usage doesn't really matter with respect of bribery. Basically, you cannot make gifts of any larger value to anyone, who is somehow in a relationship to your business. Sometimes it is really annoying, if an honest gift was intended, but these szenarios are exactly the reason, why today you cannot make gifts w…

I believe this sort of thing is explicitly outlined in the FCPA, which deals with corruption by US Corporations abroad. FCPA is pretty stringent, and this is what is covered in the in-house mandatory training you end up doing at any sizeable company. However, this is within the United States and this person appears to have been acting on Apple's behalf, so how does this fall afoul of the law (what law in particular)?

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

#136

Post by altdatathrow »

paxys wrote: post #98

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.

Is it still a bribe when the public official initiates it? I hope they all get into trouble but I do wonder, when faced with a corrupt public official who is withholding government-provided services, at some point does that not simply become the necessary payment as opposed to a "bribe"?

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

#137

Post by tshaddox »

throwawaygh wrote: post #57
calvinmorrison wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I simply cannot understand why anyone gives a damn about this. Because I currently cannot get a LCTF from the city. That's why I give a damn. It is currently effecting me. I had no need for that before corona virus, I do need one now. Bucks county is issuing it in 15 minutes. Philly does a whole interview process which goes beyond a basic NICS check and they have chosen to be poorly staffed for a very long time. Ag…

> Because I currently cannot get a LCTF from the city... I had no need for that before corona virus, I do need one now. I'm not questioning that you really do need a LTCF, but with COVID and the protests and the election suddenly everyone "needs" a gun. So there's reduced capacity + HUGE surge in demand + severe budget shortfalls. It's not a conspiracy. It's just queuing theory. > Bucks county is issuing it in 15 min…

I suspect the other commenter’s point is that they thing there should not be any procedural requirements whatsoever for concealed carry.

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

#138

Post by jeffbee »

dharmab wrote: post #81
RachelF wrote: post #61

Why do Apple employees need to carry concealed weapons?

> 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. Armed security is common at datacenters, for example.

Nobody needs a permit to carry a weapon on private property, even in California.

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

#139

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

vl wrote: post #12
zepto wrote: post #2

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.

And this is why we need federal shall-issue CCW permits and common weapon lows. This hot mess of nonsense across the states needs to stop.

But shall-issue permits are only common in the first place because states were allowed to independently try it out. Up until the mid-90s, almost all states were either may-issue or no-issue.

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

#140

Post by wil421 »

crazygringo wrote: post #104

Two things, to be clear -- 1) The sheriff's office initiated/required the bribe, it's not like Apple's head of security was trying to bribe, they were being extorted 2) It's Apple's head of physical security, not software security (since it's not clear at first) I'm curious -- if a county sheriff's office demands bribes, what is the correct legal course of action in the US? Do you bring it to county court? To the gov…

If the local police try to do something like this you call the FBI. Or if you have enough money to pay a high paid lawyer who knows DAs or Feds. I doubt you would want to go to the county.

In my state and county the local Sheriffs office handles CCW permits. A lot of times they are elected officials and play political games, even denying CCW permits. Glad these guys were held accountable.

Post reply on HN