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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by giantg2 »

paxys wrote: post #240
Someone wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Was it for the benefit of the company or individuals? Approved by the board?

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

#402

Post by rkt88edmo »

closeparen wrote: post #254
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.

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…

Quid pro quo for CCW permits is definitely bribery. Yes, there is a lot of negotiation and back scratching in govt, and a lot of it is unethical and illegal as well.

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

#403

Post by sfkdjf9j3j »

mike_d wrote: post #310
paxys wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about a high-ranking Apple executive who needed concealed carry permits. This guy literally runs a private global army. Let's not pretend he was scared for his life. He just chose to do what was easy for himself and the company (pay some pocket change) rather than take any possible legal route.

He was in charge of the executive protection team. They are armed because leaders of well known companies face constant threats and are kidnapping targets (Apple would obviously pay countless sums to get Tim Cook back safely for example). The Bay Area and New York are notorious for withholding permits because it creates artificial scarcity, and off-duty cops are the only ones able to fill the demand.

That's not what happened here though, there's no competing off duty cops protecting Apple's executives.

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

#404

Post by outworlder »

ineedasername wrote: post #316
gruez wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled. But that's a weaker claim than the original, which argued 'Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals', which I interpret to mean all thefts, rather than just burglary (a subset of '"real" criminals'). The former seems to be around 12B a year,…

And calling asset forfeiture "theft" is quite an extreme interpretation when it's mostly legitimate seizures from criminal enterprises (especially the drug trade).

Not really, it's really theft.

Were it not theft, the property would only be confiscated at the end of legal proceedings, IF it turned out it was related to the crime in question, IF the person was convicted. If those conditions did not hold, the assets should be returned.

In actuality, no crime is required for the property to be confiscated. It can be as simple as carrying a "substantial" amount of money in your person during a road trip, and getting pulled over. Where substantial is subjective. Let's say 1k.

Then your 1000 dollars get prosecuted, in a case titled "United States VS 1000 dollars in 10 dollar bills" and your money has to defend itself. I am not joking.

This mechanism was created – supposedly – to empty the coffers of suspected drug dealers in cases police couldn't actually prove their guilt. It was designed to be used on people that haven't been convicted.

That's not limited to money. It could be a house. It doesn't matter.

All it requires is a 'preponderance of evidence' that the property is related to a crime, which is a low bar. And even if it turns out that the charges are valid, it's still not ok. Because it's related to a property, not a person, you get cases like this:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hou...

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

#405

Post by randallsquared »

nl wrote: post #236
crazygringo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> He absolutely had many other options.

The only legal option I can see is "move out of CA", which probably means get another job. Which, you know, people sometimes do if they feel strongly about the right to carry, but likely wasn't in his set of considered options.

> He was the chief security officer of the biggest company in the world.

Oh, you're suggesting he use Apple to, uh, "lean on" the sheriff? That seems much worse. One might even hope that was not one of his possible options, even as CSO...

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

#406

Post by chmod775 »

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.

I think most companies would prefer their employees not go missing in some African hellhole or get incarcerated on bullshit charges wherever.

There's little difference between bribes and highway banditry in some places, and not playing along will very likely not end well for you.

Recourse in cases of abuses of power is already hit-and-miss in so-called "civilized" countries. I wouldn't count on it in countries that can't even agree on who's in charge somewhere.

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

#407

Post by Mandatum »

temp667 wrote: post #323
kennywinker wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have it on good authority that all apple employees are trained to not pay any kind of bribes. Didn't realize that training would need to be applied in the states tho

That's bad training. If they are stuck in a country because they won't pay the $20 exit fee because authorizing legislation was not properly adopted, then apple are idiots. It will take one person dying because of this policy for apple to be sued to hell and back.

That's why organisations use proxy security and travel agents to pay those bribes. It's built into the price.

American Express GBT, BCD Travel, CWT, FCM Travel, they all offer it. It's usually expensed as "Consulting" or "Advisory", however never separated in invoiced line-items.

Every single large tech organisation has made lip-service commitments publicly to not accept bribes, but also operate in countries where it's the absolute norm. How is that handled? Through an intermediary.

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

#408

Post by throwawaygh »

noodlesUK wrote: post #381
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. GP is appalled at commenters breaking for Apple, and I'm just pointing out that their response is best understood as a projection of themselves into Apple's shoes. And in that case the response is reasonable. But of course the unreasonable thing those commenters need to realize is that Apple is insanely powerful and insanely powerful institutions putting up with corruption is Not OK.

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

#410

Post by rkt88edmo »

closeparen wrote: post #254
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.

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…

Issuing CCW permits isn't a negotiation of city land or development. It is literally a Driver's License for carrying a firearm in public. Should the DMV counter person get to haggle with every person trying to get a driver's license in the name of the public good?
Post reply on HN