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

181–190 of 1001 posts

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

#181

Post by randyrand »

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 also pay bribes when I feel threatened for my safety and the person i’m talking to has the tools i need for my safety and demands rent.

The only people in the wrong here are the police .

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

#182

Post by lokar »

ohazi wrote: post #119
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 disagree. I dislike Apple's practices as much as anyone, but when the #2 person at the sheriff's office is the one soliciting the bribe, you have a problem with the police department that even Apple cannot be expected to fix. You can argue that they should have gone straight to the DA, and you might even be right, but the only way for this problem to get fixed is by cleaning house at the police department, not by s…

If you don't trust the locals (DA), then go to the FBI. They are setup to deal with this. You don't pay the bribe.

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

#183

Post by adrr »

pps43 wrote: post #106
kube-system wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That mess of laws is an inherent part of our strong foundation in federalism.

Yet somehow the 1st or 5th Amendment are applied across all states uniformly, unlike the 2nd.

How Grand Juries work is up to the states. They vary a lot. Even how regular juries work is up to the states eg: Oregon doesn't require unanimous verdict. I am sure you can dig into 1st amendment and find differences across the states. I am sure states have laws on how and where you can petition.

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

#184

Post by Someone »

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.

Indeed. I think this wasn’t a matter of Apple or the employee paying a bribe, but of the employee receiving one in exchange for stealing hardware from Apple.

I read the story as:

- Head of security team contacts police to get concealed carrying permits for his employees

- Police officer says “if Apple gives us 200 iPads, that can be arranged. On top of that, you’ll get $X”.

- Head of security team agrees, signs of for the Apple hardware, and receives a bribe.

If so, Apple was the only one paying, but the company probably wouldn’t have known about that (possibly, multiple employees would)

If this were the police asking for iPads in exchange for permits, I would call it extortion, not bribery.

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

#186

Post by jlawer »

ec109685 wrote: post #69
jlawer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume executive protection, in case some crazy tries to fix the "covid causing 5G iphones" by assassinating Tim Cook or such.

This events are from August 2019, so no covid then.

Good point. The "reason" changes, the crazies never do.

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

#187

Post by ghaff »

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…

Yeah. The training I've taken has been in the context of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act but it's made clear that even if certain practices are considered business as usual in some places, they're absolutely off-limits. Even if this was ostensibly in the context of what they believed was needed to do their job, Apple (properly) does not have their back--and hopefully did not encourage this in any way.

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

#188

Post by geofft »

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's always a bribe. In places without a fully-functional rule of law, it may also be the necessary payment (i.e., the payment of bribes may be expected to conduct business or get through a checkpoint or whatever), but it's still a bribe.

It's actually pretty common for bribes to be requested by the official - the first answer at https://www.quora.com/What-should-I-do-if-the-customs-office... has a description of how this sort of thing usually works.

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

#189

Post by wolco2 »

giantg2 wrote: post #153
pmoriarty wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the employee was put in the unfortunate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe" ...or immediately going to the FBI.

These permits in CA are may-issue, not shall-issue. The sheriff can deny for any reason (of course they aren't supposed to ask for a bribe).

Why give police the power to decide these permits? Power corrupts
Post reply on HN