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

201–210 of 1001 posts

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

#201

Post by jbuzbee »

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?

I've gone through various "International Training" sessions at my company and one of the things they teach is that if a foreign official says something like, "hmmm... your papers are invalid, but I can help you out for $100" or similar, you should pay and immediately report (and expense) it on return. I know one coworker who went through this traveling through a small country.

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

#202

Post by geofft »

eznzt wrote: post #179
SrslyJosh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals.

Source?

From the Google results for 'civil asset forfeture theft':

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-mor...

In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled.

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

#203

Post by tshaddox »

giantg2 wrote: post #199
tshaddox wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the test is necessarily subjective. The instructor can determine, for instance, whether the applicant drove recklessly during the exam.

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

#205

Post by triceratops »

jbuzbee wrote: post #201
wolco2 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I've gone through various "International Training" sessions at my company and one of the things they teach is that if a foreign official says something like, "hmmm... your papers are invalid, but I can help you out for $100" or similar, you should pay and immediately report (and expense) it on return. I know one coworker who went through this traveling through a small country.

Your company trained you to pay bribes? That sounds...unusual, and not at all lawful (according to US law, if you are based in the US).

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

#206

Post by kmonsen »

rmk wrote: post #160
jeffbee wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How about when going to the private property, e.g., via a highway? I assume permits are needed for that?

But you don't need it to be concealed at that point right? Non concealed license is not hard to get in CA (I beleive).

Edit: Reading up, you can only transport firearms in CA loaded if you have CCW. And loaded weapons is kind of needed to protect VIPs.

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

#207

Post by 1123581321 »

jonas21 wrote: post #130

Kinda reminds me of that time the Cupertino City Council asked Steve Jobs for free Wifi and iPads in the hearing to approve Apple's new campus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M&t=790 But I guess they all had a good laugh in the end, so it doesn't count?

It’s not illegal to joke about bribery.

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

#208

Post by rmk »

bilbo0s wrote: post #157
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…

Was going to upvote you, but I think even a private citizen of limited means failing to inform the Feds is an unforgivable offense against our society as well. Knowing about public corruption, and not reporting it, is tantamount to racketeering. No matter how much power you have.

There are plenty of extenuating circumstances. For example, if you were a spouse of a corrupt law enforcement officer who's already facing domestic violence, would it be racketeering if you did not report your spouse's conduct? I am willing to bet it wouldn't (you have a credible fear of being assaulted, or worse yet, losing your life if you did so).

This is why things like anonymous tip lines and whistleblower laws exist. You are encouraged, in general, to report misconduct. But there are very specific situations where it's illegal to not report misconduct.

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

#209

Post by pjkundert »

bilbo0s wrote: post #157
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…

Was going to upvote you, but I think even a private citizen of limited means failing to inform the Feds is an unforgivable offense against our society as well. Knowing about public corruption, and not reporting it, is tantamount to racketeering. No matter how much power you have.

There was a time when reporting malfeasance to the federal authorities was the obvious right thing to do.

Now it is clear that reporting criminal acts to eg. the FBI is very risky; if the officer is politically aligned to the politically and societaly dominant party, and you are not, you're toast.

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

#210

Post by sandworm101 »

kmonsen wrote: post #177
sandworm101 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hidden carry is never essential for security teams. It is about looks. They dont want the guns appearing in potential photos of Apple events. The guards can carry guns openly just like every single street cop.
Post reply on HN