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

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161

Post by giantg2 »

robcohen wrote: post #128
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.

I would agree if California was a shall-issue state for CCW, but it's a may-issue state. Essentially it's arbitrarily up to the sheriffs department if you can get a CCW. Personally, I chose to live in shall-issue states.

I can't see how any may-issue schemes are legal when it comes to equal protection rights.

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

#162

Post by Rebelgecko »

mattlutze wrote: post #50
calvinmorrison wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagining getting indicted for having to bribe a local official to exercise an essential right, specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, and held up repeatedly in the courts (Hello DC v. Heller). It's a situation where there are two classes, the haves and have nots. If you aren't politically connected in NJ, NY, CA, etc - good luck. If you exercise these rights, you will end up in a prison cell. Even places like PA…

DC v. Heller specifically in the Decision text does not support or go against CCW laws or prohibitions, rather leaving those to the existing state and federal laws. It was a finding against a ban on private holding and keeping of firearms, and of keeping firearms in the home in a state easily fired.

Keep an eye on Young v Hawaii in the coming months. Should be interesting.

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

#163

Post by tshaddox »

beervirus wrote: post #55
danaris wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The marginal cost of carrying a gun is an enormous increase in the probability that you, personally, will be killed by a gun.

There's a correlation because people who live in dangerous places tend to carry guns. But that's not causation--there's no reason to suspect that carrying a gun increases my chances of being killed by a gun.

Huh? Surely carrying a gun somewhere where there are no other guns immensely increased the chance that you’ll be killed by a gun, since the number of guns in the vicinity went from zero to one.

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

#164

Post by jkaplowitz »

robcohen wrote: post #128
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.

I would agree if California was a shall-issue state for CCW, but it's a may-issue state. Essentially it's arbitrarily up to the sheriffs department if you can get a CCW. Personally, I chose to live in shall-issue states.

The sheriff's department wasn't allowed to refuse the permit for this reason, as evidenced by the fact that the officials involved are also being criminally charged for the bribery scheme.

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

#165

Post by _ph_ »

rmk wrote: post #135
_ph_ wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

I am not in the US, but working at an American company. From my trainings I got the impression that the anti-corrupion rules are to be obeyed globally.

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

#166

Post by giantg2 »

kmonsen wrote: post #156
robcohen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree if California was a shall-issue state for CCW, but it's a may-issue state. Essentially it's arbitrarily up to the sheriffs department if you can get a CCW. Personally, I chose to live in shall-issue states.

That is just bullshit. May issue does not mean may according to bribe.

How do you explain denials in a may-issue system if the individual meets statutory requirements?

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

#167

Post by TuringNYC »

altdatathrow wrote: post #136
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"?

It was be entrapment, but still a bribe. There are lots of cases like it.

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

#168

Post by echlebek »

kbenson wrote: post #146
SrslyJosh wrote: post #101

> "When high-ranking members of a law enforcement agency are at the heart of a bribery scheme, it tarnishes the badge, the honour, the reputations and - tragically - the effectiveness of all law enforcement agencies." Yep, that's definitely a black mark against the people that have been beating, gassing, and shooting unarmed citizens for most of the last six months. =)

In what way is equating the actions of some police officers with all police officers different than equating the actions of some specific ethnic or religious group with all the people of that group? If it isn't okay to stereotype based on race or religious affiliation maybe we shouldn't stereotype based on profession either. Just because some group has become the whipping boy of the moment (for good reason), doesn't…

I'll explain how, even though I suspect you didn't take the time to think about it. It's because police groups are a command and control hierarchical organization. They aren't some loose group of people that share an attribute. When police officers commit crimes, their commanding officers share the responsibility.

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

#169

Post by underseacables »

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.

Technology is a lot like politics: Only the people you like are doing good.

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

#170

Post by stouset »

kbenson wrote: post #146
SrslyJosh wrote: post #101

> "When high-ranking members of a law enforcement agency are at the heart of a bribery scheme, it tarnishes the badge, the honour, the reputations and - tragically - the effectiveness of all law enforcement agencies." Yep, that's definitely a black mark against the people that have been beating, gassing, and shooting unarmed citizens for most of the last six months. =)

In what way is equating the actions of some police officers with all police officers different than equating the actions of some specific ethnic or religious group with all the people of that group? If it isn't okay to stereotype based on race or religious affiliation maybe we shouldn't stereotype based on profession either. Just because some group has become the whipping boy of the moment (for good reason), doesn't…

Police officers choose to be a part of that group of their own free will, for starters.
Post reply on HN