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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by sigzero »

jakear wrote: post #25
zepto wrote: post #2

Apple’s security chief should be fired over this. But, this is common practice where there are ‘may issue’ CCW permits. Either have shall issue, or no issue. Having the sheriff decide just creates a valuable commodity.

Ha! I’d bet the security head did not do this of their own accord, there was almost certainly a higher-up approving it. And what would apple do, replace their head of security (who is willing and able to navigate sociopolitical constructs in order to do their job to the fullest extent possible) with some random fellow who would turn around at the first “no” from some beurocrat and report back to senior leadership tha…

You have no idea if what you are saying is even remotely true.

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

#232

Post by Wingman4l7 »

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.

> unless there was some reason the CCW permits should not have been issued (criminal conviction or some other risk)

California has counties which are "may-issue" (getting your permit is decided on a case-by-case "need" basis by the local sheriff) vs. "shall-issue" (must be issued to the applicant if they have done paperwork correctly and pass background checks). Shall-issue has a very obvious flaw, which is on full display in this case.

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

#233

Post by giantg2 »

paxys wrote: post #223
giantg2 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The requested permits were for Apple's security team.

As a condition of employment, or personally?

Most states have separate licensing for armed employment.

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

#234

Post by alfalfasprout »

ponker wrote: post #134

Why should Apple security have CCW permits? Why do they deserve them any more than a random person? They should not be able to defend Apple property with lethal force.

Why shouldn't people be able to defend themselves and their property w/ lethal force? Should we just let them die for the police to arrive 10 min late?

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

#235

Post by kube-system »

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.

States still have their own laws regarding legal procedure and speech rights, and they do vary by state. Those overarching rights are still a patchwork between states. Many states give protections that go beyond the requirements in the US Constitution -- this is completely legal and not uncommon. The Bill of Rights mainly defines which laws are illegal -- it does not prescribe what is legal.

This is currently what is the case with shall-issue vs may-issue, at least until SCOTUS clarifies otherwise.

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

#236

Post by nl »

crazygringo wrote: post #114
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 see any Apple apologists here in the comments. Who are you referring to? All I see is the fact that the Apple employee didn't initiate the bribe, the sheriff's office demanded it (extorted it) and the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe. At the end of the day it's bribery so of course the employee deserves to be ch…

the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe

He was the chief security officer of the biggest company in the world. He absolutely had many other options.

I don't see any Apple apologists here in the comments. Who are you referring to?

You do realize that your comment here is exactly what "apologists" means, right?

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

#237

Post by onenine »

triceratops wrote: post #205
jbuzbee wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

There is an exception under the foreign corrupt practices act (FCPA) that if you do as parent poster described (pay and report as such) then it is legal. Otherwise you are correct, it is highly illegal.

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

#238

Post by brendoelfrendo »

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.

That is illegal according to US law. At my company, we are explicitly taught the opposite: paying "facilitation fees" is prohibited and illegal and that the employer will fire you and throw you under the bus if they find out you did so. They explicitly mention that this is not allowed even if it is the norm in the country in which you are doing business.

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

#239

Post by t-writescode »

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?

Honestly, this sounds like it's coming from someone that lives in a country where bribes aren't commonplace.

It's good that you and I both live in countries like that; but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common.

From the other comments in this thread, it's suggesting that the CCW permit process in California is very bad and broken and these bribes have been an illegal method of actually getting CCW permits.

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

#240

Post by paxys »

Someone wrote: post #184
giantg2 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

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

If an Apple executive was the one running the entire thing, how is the argument that the company wasn't aware of it? What even is "the company" at this point?

Post reply on HN