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

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by jkaplowitz »

giantg2 wrote: post #161
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.

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

If may-issue schemes are applied in a way that evaluates the individual case on neutral and non-discriminatory criteria, even if a subjective element of judgment exists, it certainly can comply with equal protection rights.

If they're applied in an unequal way, of course that's different.

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

#172

Post by renewiltord »

codazoda wrote: post #41
nickff wrote: post #16

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.

I hear it's really difficult to get a CCW in CA unless you are rich or famous. I'm wondering if that's true?

In counties like this, this is the case. Well-meaning citizens say "Well, we trust the police so if we just let them use their discretion everything will be all right". That has the predictable effect it has everywhere in the world which is that the police then choose to monetize that discretion.

Similar things happen in the planning department and public works department in San Francisco. Supervisors will receive half-price homes laundered through their parents, that sort of thing. Pretty transparent for the Third World (where sophisticated criminal agents will extract some of the value if they know you have some ill-gotten gains) but certainly sufficient for present-day US (where rule of law is generally available).

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

#173

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

tshaddox wrote: post #141
ciarannolan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume these are high-level security personnel at Apple HQ. It doesn't seem unreasonable to have armed security at a place like that. > A grand jury alleges that Thomas Moyer promised to donate 200 iPads worth $70,000 to the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Office in exchange for four concealed firearm licenses for Apple employees. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/11/23/apple-...

But why concealed?

Concealed is the only option. California doesn't allow sheriffs to issue open carry licenses except in low-population rural counties.

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

#174

Post by Swizec »

wolco2 wrote: post #158
throwawaygh wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A private citizen of limited means paying a bribe is somehow reasonable because there's a huge power imbalance. Refusing to pay a bribe is also a refusal to participate in a racket. Local police can be extremely petty and extremely violent [1]. If a police officer told me he'd let me off for a bribe, I would probably pay it. I wouldn't be paying to get what I want. Rather, I would be paying to avoid the appearance th…

That's probably one of the craziest things I've heard. Never commit a crime to look a certain way because it won't look that way tomorrow. The police could be trapping you. If not they now have dirt on you. How in the world can you explain that to a judge if it came to that?

When a person with a gun says do something, you do it.

Especially if said person is an LEO in a country famous for above-the-law LEOs.

Principles are easy to have from the safety of a keyboard. How many of us would keep them in a real world situation?

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

#175

Post by paxys »

This is the perfect example for why the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act needs to apply within the country's borders as well. Apple would be in an absolute world of pain right now (from both the DOJ and SEC) had they been caught bribing a random sheriff in Canada or Italy or anywhere else, but large companies getting into such relationships with local governments across the US is sadly too common.

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

#176

Post by Google234 »

mdorazio wrote: post #52
beervirus wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never had a fire in my kitchen, but I still keep a fire extinguisher. I’ve never had cancer, but I still have medical insurance. The marginal cost of carrying a gun is basically zero. If I ever do find myself in a situation where I need it, I’ll be glad to have it. And even if I don’t, the fact that random anonymous law-abiding citizens have guns is itself a crime deterrent.

Kitchen fires are very common, as is cancer (not to mention the slew of other issues that require medical attention). Being in a situation where having a concealed gun in public will help anything is not. You haven't addressed any part of the argument here... edit: also, there is no conclusive evidence at all to support your last statement [1]. [1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-... .

They say it’s inconclusive. I would rather be safe.

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

#177

Post by kmonsen »

sandworm101 wrote: post #97
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.

I don't really have sympathy, but I think as much criminals is a bit too strong.

I am also wondering if this is essential equipment for the security team.

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

#178

Post by jkaplowitz »

giantg2 wrote: post #107
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.

Why the company? Seems like it was just this individual.

The individual was arranging a donation to be provided by the company, which only didn't happen because of the investigation itself. That is, the bribe would have been paid by Apple.

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

#179

Post by eznzt »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #96
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.

Source?

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

#180

Post by sepples »

antpls wrote: post #17
cbozeman wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason there are needs for concealed carry every single place on Earth. You don't want bad actors to know who is - and who isn't - armed.

That is simply not true. There is no need for concealed carry in France nor UK, for example. Even the Wikipedia article on the topic lists numerous scientific studies showing that the effectiveness of concealed carry varies in place and time, and that there is almost no link between concealed carry and lower crime rates : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_Unite...

Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and the government currently grants licenses to carry a concealed handgun there despite having highly restrictive laws elsewhere in the country. I highly doubt this would be the case if there wasn't a strong recognized need.
Post reply on HN