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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by mcny »

threatofrain wrote: post #148
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…

Esp. because the story continues with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's office extorting other bribes from other parties.

They didn't even touch the Sheriff.

> Sheriff Laurie Smith, who has the authority to issue CCW permits, has not been charged with a crime.

Either i. the sheriff knew about/was in on this scheme and must be put in prison or ii. the sheriff didn't know about how her number two was soliciting bribes using her authority to grant/deny licenses and must resign because that is just gross negligence.

Which one is it?

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

#262

Post by kube-system »

bacondude3 wrote: post #112
kube-system wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

State laws that contradict federal legislation is not a foundation of Federalism, though.

1. It sort of is. The prevailing founding arguments for federalism was as a check against the national government. Even today, 35 states contradict the federal government's regulation that states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use"

2. Only SCOTUS can definitively say whether or not may-issue contradicts the 2nd.

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

#263

Post by kbenson »

colinmhayes wrote: post #197
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…

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.

Yes, being a cop is a choice. But not everyone becomes one for the same reason. Assuming negatives about everyone in that group is unfair and unhelpful to the people that are within it trying to actually enact change.

In what way is disparaging anyone who is a police officer because they are a police officer any different than disparaging anyone that is a lawyer because of the numerous negative stories about lawyers? There's plenty of jokes about lawyers, but I assume most people take those for what they are, jokes playing on stereotypes that shouldn't be applied to an individual or inform your opinion of an individual prior to evidence about them.

Are you saying it's okay to immediately have an opinion about the trustworthiness or likelihood of an individual police officer just because they are a police officer? That seems to be what your comment is defending.

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

#264

Post by throw0101a »

sandworm101 wrote: post #105
yalogin wrote: post #78

Wow the sheriff’s office is asking for bribes openly like this? I am really surprised. I wonder how common bribes are at that level of the government.

At the local level? It is commonplace. Look into how many local police agencies have vehicles or other equipment donated by local citizens. Look at where an elected sherrif gets his campaign funding. There is very little oversight at the local level.

> Look at where an elected sherrif gets his campaign funding.

Reminder that in many US jurisdictions judges are also elected and may need campaign funding.

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

#265

Post by CobrastanJorji »

_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.

Yes. It's a crime for an American to bribe US government officials, and it's also a crime for an American to bribe foreign government agents as well (that's the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

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

#266

Post by giantg2 »

kec wrote: post #244
giantg2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...any legal reason...

Actually, denying the permit via an illegal action (requesting a bribe) is not a lawful denial and would result in the violation of your equal protection rights.

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

#267

Post by JackC »

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).

Sounds like there's a distinction under the FCPA between actual bribery (illegal) and grease payments (legal), where an official requests a bribe to do their job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

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

#268

Post by eloisius »

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.

I had corporate training, annually, that said to do the exact opposite. We were not even allowed to give or accept innocuous gifts like tickets to a game without getting it approved by our legal department.

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

#269

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

zepto wrote: post #40
gertrunde wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found one of the last paragraphs quite interesting... "He has overall responsibility for Apple’s ethics and compliance program" The head of Ethics being involved in bribery? Yeah, that's a problem.

That’s why the firing. On the other hand, I think he’s in difficult position given that this kind of shakedown is common practice. What’s especially absurd is that there are many people who carry concealed guns into the Bay Area legally every day, who just happen to live in counties where CCW’s are easily approved.

> who just happen to live in counties where CCW’s are easily approved.

I wonder what the legal implications of "moving for CCW" would look like. In Florida, you just have to notify the state that you moved... do a little scoot to the right county, get the CCW, move back.

This could be a hot fangled startup, "GunCCW"... "move to where you get your rights". Wonder what the legal penalty for letting someone change their address to your house for a bit would look like.

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

systemvoltage wrote: post #259
baryphonic wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What is unconstitutional about prosecuting people of crimes that they commit by bribing officials? I’m not following your logic.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN