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

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by giantg2 »

nl wrote: post #251
giantg2 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These permits in CA are may-issue, not shall-issue. The sheriff can deny for any reason (of course they aren't supposed to ask for a bribe).

Soliciting bribes is explicitly against the law, and that has nothing to do with "may" vs "shall" issue.

Please explain how this same scenario would work under a shall-issue scheme?

Edit: Since you wouldn't respond... denying a permit under a shall-issue scheme would require proof that they didn't meet the statutory requirements instead of providing the issuer with the ability to hide their reason behind an arbitrary excuse.

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

#272

Post by CobrastanJorji »

SteveGerencser wrote: post #125
paxys wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious -- if a county sheriff's office demands bribes, what is the correct legal course of action in the US? Do you bring it to county court? To the governor's office? To state police? To state court? I imagine anything other than "pay the bribe" would suffice.

Except not paying the bribe then opens you up to all sorts of incidental interactions with the sheriff's department. I have stacks of anecdotal interactions with local level police (both sheriff and police) that nothing surprises me anymore.

Yes, and if Apple were a regular private citizen, I'd feel very sympathetic towards them here, but in this case Apple is basically the most powerful possible other party in a blackmail attempt imaginable. They're a $2 trillion company whose employees make up a significant section of the population of that area, including something like 500 full time lawyers.

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

#273

Post by ApolloRising »

codazoda wrote: post #41
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.

I hear it's really difficult to get a CCW in CA unless you are rich or famous. I'm wondering if that's true?

Not all of California, Orange county gives them out slowly but more fairly, they are underfunded for that department so it takes quite some time due to demand.

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

#274

Post by wl »

throwawaygh wrote: post #120
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.

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…

> A high-level exec at one of the world's most powerful companies paying off a local LEO for a permit instead of, IDK, contacting the State or the Feds, is beyond inexplicable.

The State or the Feds don't issue CCWs in California. Chief local law enforcement officers only, which means sheriffs and police chiefs.

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

#275

Post by pageandrew »

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.

He's referring to the Right to Keep and Bear arms only being recognized in those who can afford to bribe the local Sheriff.

California's gun laws are pretty blatantly unconstitutional, even without the bribery.

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

#276

Post by temp667 »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #238
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.

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.

"That is illegal according to US law."

Can I ask if you are an attorney - because this is absolutely 100% false. You are spreading misinformation here.

If your employer fires you for paying a facilitation fee to advance a routine govt action or travel then you should absolutely sue them.

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

#277

Post by throw0101a »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #45
n0nc3 wrote: post #6

A related historical anecdote. The Mulford Act was the first law on the path towards California's strict CCW regime. Whatever your policy preference, it is history worth knowing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

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.

> […] protesting inside the capitol building while armed.

Meanwhile, in Michigan:

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/protesters-michigan-whitmer-co...

* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/michigan-pro...

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

#278

Post by ummonk »

geofft wrote: post #198
giantg2 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

You’ve got it backwards. Instances where they do leave evidence are the exception, not the norm. Which is why the anti discrimination laws are somewhat toothless and the government tries to look for statistical evidence of discrimination.

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

#279

Post by pageandrew »

danbolt wrote: post #92
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.

I'm not an American, but Sheriffs are typically locally elected, correct? I'm curious how that can depend from county to county.

Sheriffs are locally elected.

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

#280

Post by mullingitover »

> “Call this quid pro quo, call it pay to play, call it give to get—it is illegal,” Rosen said. “It is illegal and it deeply erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system..."

To be completely fair, events in the course of this year have shown that the criminal justice system wasn't that trustworthy to begin with. I don't think there's a lot of confidence left to lose at this point.

Post reply on HN