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

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Post by tshaddox »

giantg2 wrote: post #225
tshaddox wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sort of. I kind of hate that reckless driving law since it is somewhat subjective. Each state should have case law about it and allow you your due process rights to challenge it too. But yeah, I can see in the context of the test that it could be a problem. If you record the test, then you should be able to challenge it (sad it sometimes comes to that). I'm in a similar situation, actually. I had a trooper lie in cou…

It would be extremely difficult to define all driving rules objectively even if you had extremely high resolution data of the car and its surroundings. Approximately as difficult as programming a fully autonomous car, I reckon.

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

#242

Post by sandworm101 »

kmonsen wrote: post #229
sandworm101 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think CA law will not let you have any loaded weapons transported without CCW. And loaded weapons is kind of needed to protect VIPs.

Then keep them unloaded. It takes less than a second for a pro to load a handgun. This isnt hollywood. Close protection details for large US corps virtually never fire a shot in anger. It is a once-per-decade event.

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

#243

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

Swizec wrote: post #174
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?

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?

I guess it depends on whether the Apple guy had a reasonable fear for his life. If the Sheriff said, "Hey it would be cool if you guys gave me some iPads maybe I could grease the wheels on your gun permit," then I don't buy it. A reasonable person should not be afraid of the sheriff at that point. There's some risk in reporting the situation, but it's not that serious. Maybe you don't feel comfortable reporting him, so perhaps you decide you don't need that CCW after all. Giving the bribe is far from the only option, and the presence of any element of risk is not carte blanche for illegal activities.

If the sheriff said gimme the iPads or I'll blow your brains out, that's another story. But I guess that's not what happened here.

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

#244

Post by kec »

giantg2 wrote: post #149
ohazi wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don't go to the DA - they work with these people. Go to the feds since this violation of your rights is being committed under the color of law.

California is a may issue state, the sheriff's office can decline to issue a permit for any reason. Soliciting the bribe is illegal for other reasons, but failing to issue the permit is not a rights violation under California law.

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

#245

Post by loeg »

jeffbee wrote: post #126
Teknoman117 wrote: post #23

This article seems to be less about CCW permits themselves and more that a state agency is soliciting bribes for various permits when they realize the wealth of the organizations seeking them. > Requested $75k of Apple tech to issue a CCW permit to the head of security, etc.

The Santa Clara County Sheriff is not a state agency.

That's a needlessly nitpicky interpretation of a minute part of GP's comment. It's a government agency in the state of California.

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

#246

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

wffurr wrote: post #218
tomatotomato37 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Named after a Republican assemblyman, supported by the NRA, passed by a 2/3 vote in a Democratic assembly & senate, and signed in by Ronald Reagan, all due to a group of Black Panthers protesting inside the capitol building while armed. Who knew all you needed was a racial incentive in order to make the stripping of rights a bipartisan effort.

https://youtu.be/yJqfNroFp8U

OMG, this is hilarious.

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

#247

Post by cowmoo728 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #221

It worries me that the local sheriff thought he could extort bribes from a multinational company and get away with it. And Apple is very much top of the list. Of course the cops are corrupt, but this degree of corruption is something you'd have thought would happen only in Brazil. It's either more common than we know or this individual is unusually stupid.

Bribery for gun permits is also very common in NYC. It's well known that you either have to employ ex-NYPD in some capacity to get a gun permit, or pay cash. Maybe it's slowed down since some high profile arrests in 2017.

https://abc7ny.com/nypd-police-corruption-investigation/1914...

DAs don't like investigating cops.

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

#248

Post by CobrastanJorji »

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…

> it seems likely Apple/Moyer would rather pay the bribe.

It sounds like we agree on the facts. Apple, and specifically Moyer, decided to pay a bribe to a government official. Bribery is a crime. Why do you find it odd that he's being charged?

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

#249

Post by baryphonic »

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.

> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period.

Apple or no Apple, no one in America should be deprived of their Constitutional rights. I'm more concerned that authoritarian states like California can get away with depriving the people of our explicit rights under American law than I am with people paying bribes just to exercise those rights.

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

#250

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

mlindner wrote: post #200
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wikipedia has a good summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_.... (there's supposed to be a period at the end of the link).

Of course, concealed carry restrictions aren't the only gun laws in the country, but I have to admit I'm just not very informed on any others. I do know California's handgun registry has gotten stricter.

Post reply on HN