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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by pmoriarty »

function_seven wrote: post #46
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.

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…

"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."

This is why you go directly to the FBI.

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

#192

Post by tshaddox »

giantg2 wrote: post #166
kmonsen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Does the driving test requirement to receive a driver’s license mean that driver’s licenses are may-issue?

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

#193

Post by zajio1am »

stouset wrote: post #170
kbenson wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is also true for religious groups.

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

#194

Post by giantg2 »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #171
giantg2 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the criteria isn't codified, then how can it be equally applied?

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

#195

Post by rmk »

_ph_ wrote: post #165
rmk wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's correct. They are to be obeyed globally by the (US) corporation, which is why they make you go through the training. When you are acting on behalf of the corporation you are expected to help the corporation comply with applicable law.

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

#196

Post by solinent »

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 don't know if it's just a bribe either--who knows what they did to those iPads, I'm sure information from the police could be used for political gain.

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

#197

Post by colinmhayes »

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…

Being a cop is a choice. You can stop whenever you want. Race and to a large extent religion(lots of religions implore the congregation to shun those who leave) are not a choice.

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

#198

Post by geofft »

giantg2 wrote: post #166
kmonsen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's just like employment discrimination. In an at-will-employment jurisdiction, my boss is free to arbitrarily fire me, but cannot specifically fire me for e.g. my race.

(How do you tell the difference? Well, as in this case, usually people leave some sort of evidence, and the legal system has a process for demanding evidence and evaluating it. It's not perfect, but it's certainly not unenforceable.)

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

#199

Post by giantg2 »

tshaddox wrote: post #192
giantg2 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Does the driving test requirement to receive a driver’s license mean that driver’s licenses are may-issue?

Nope, that's also shall-issue in most states. If you meet the statutory requirements (passing the test, age, etc), then they must issue the license.

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

#200

Post by mlindner »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #139
vl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a source for that? Gun laws have only gotten more strict in recent years, not less strict.
Post reply on HN