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

381–390 of 1001 posts

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

#381

Post by noodlesUK »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #243
Swizec wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I think this is the particularly pathetic thing. Low level LE does this all the time, but in this case, Apple (and the security guy) should have reached out to their (likely) myriad contacts within the FBI/DOJ/CA State. It’s one thing if the little guy caves to government extortion. It’s another thing altogether if the big guy is willing to tolerate it where it could do something about it.

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

#382

Post by throwawaygh »

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.

I have seen both in training, but in different contexts.

jbuzbee is referring to international travel training you go through if you apply to travel to/through a "red"/"restricted" country. They are not referring to the generic "don't take a bribe for a contract" training.

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

#383

Post by giantg2 »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #356
giantg2 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it probably had no idea that it was part of a bribe. How could it?

Who would have to know before you would consider "the company" as knowing it? This was a chief executive doing it

I'd say if the company was benefiting instead of just the individuals.

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

#384

Post by brigandish »

reaperducer wrote: post #330
temp667 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and it's clearly permitted to pay in that case because being able to travel involves routine govt action. I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.

I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from. From the usual IANAL crowd: "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true." And if you're an actual lawyer, internet rules dictate that anything you know is trumped by a Wikipedia link.

To be fair, the Wikipedia pages on law that I've read are quite good (IANAL, just interested), probably because they rarely touch on politics.

Or, perhaps it's that those editors who distort other areas of the wiki to fit their political biases aren't interested in law. It could be either or both (or neither, but I'm biased towards myself;)

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

#385

Post by rkt88edmo »

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…

It's normal in CA because that is what elites do, often. They pay bribes to obtain general privileges of the public that are being withheld. Similar to the college admissions scandal. For CCW permits this has been an open secret in some jurisdictions for decades. Pay to play is elitist, classist, and hopefully they will be convicted for doing it.

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

#386

Post by thathndude »

Spooky23 wrote: post #367
closeparen wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like the iPads were for the department, not the guy's personal use. It's a little bit dubious given that it's the same agency asking for and receiving the benefit, but money is fungible. Suppose the Sheriff had insisted on iPads for some other department, like the schools. Governments do stuff like this all the time. In fact constituents get mad when they don't . The Planning Commission is considered derelic…

Nooooo. You’re making up stuff about things you don’t know about. Accepting gifts is always an issue in government, and often a serious crime for the employee, regardless of who benefits. Accepting or demanding compensation for official action is corruption, regardless of the beneficiary. Negotiating public contracts, seeking public benefit, or enforcing requirements related to permitting is not bribery or corruption…

Go back to the original city council meeting where Jobs announces the new Apple headquarters. The council asks if they’ll be getting free Wi-Fi with the campus or anything. Not a straight up pay to play, but things like the above commenter described DO happen.

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

#387

Post by throwawaygh »

rkt88edmo wrote: post #375
Swizec wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There was zero threat to get the payment. There are certain counties and sheriff's where campaign contributions are one of the main routes towards obtaining a permit. No one is getting pressured by threat of force to do this. This is not a new game in CA. Other's have been called out for it.

I feel like this thread went a bit south... the second half of my comment starts with:

>> But this isn't that.

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

#388

Post by randallsquared »

rmk wrote: post #208
bilbo0s wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Spousal privilege would cover this specific example, I think? But the example could be shifted to adult dependent child, maybe, to create the same situation.

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

#389

Post by thathndude »

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?

Thank you for posting. This is exactly what I thought about. Anyone other than Steve probably would have said something like “that’s something we can look into and explore.” Leave it to Steve to be like “nah. We pay our taxes. That’s good.”

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

#390

Post by zorpner »

newacct583 wrote: post #380
crx07 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad. Whether it's legal or illegal is almost aside the point, someone can choose between either breaking some arcane, unenforced US law, or potentially spending months/years in some hellhole of a third-world jail or prison while the Embassy slowly negotiates a release. And in some places, that's assuming someone doesn't just "disa…

> I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad. That would be conspiracy. No, absolutely this does not happen. Now, at the micro level it does happen that individual executives rope their employees in to fraud at their direction. But absoutely no "company" anywhere "advises" its employees to pay bribes as a matter of policy.

Yes, this happens frequently. They are termed "facilitation payments" rather than bribes, they are budgeted and accounted for as expenses, and the official direction of briefing materials at at least three Fortune 100 companies (that I know of) directs people to pay them.
Post reply on HN