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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by LyndsySimon »

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.

> Gun laws have only gotten more strict in recent years, not less strict

This is definitely not true at the state level, and not exactly true at the federal level either.

Every state to which I regularly travel is now "constitutional carry" - i.e., no permit needed at all. None of them were ten years ago.

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

#422

Post by cbozeman »

jeffbee wrote: post #129
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.

Arming black people is the only strategy for getting rid of the 2nd amendment that will actually work.

Not even close... thanks to YouTube personalities like Colion Noir, white gun owners and black gun owners are on very very good terms.

There's a lot of black shooters at the ranges here in North Texas, and I'm happy to see them. Black people aren't my enemy - the ever encroaching desire of the state to strip us of what few freedoms we have left is.

Pity no one was listening to George Carlin...

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

#423

Post by crx07 »

chmod775 wrote: post #406
newacct583 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

People are actually downvoting my post (and the one where someone confirmed that this happened at three Fortune 100 companies).

It's one thing to be a boy scout, but it's another entirely to get accused of severe, frivolous charges while abroad, or to drive up to an armed cartel/militant roadblock, and then say "I'm sorry, bribes are against corporate policy and illegal in my country" when asked for $50.

Shame on any company for creating a clause like that and risking their employees lives instead of just remaining silent on the matter. Make no mistake, bribery isn't optional in many parts of the world, it's a robbery by a uniformed official.

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

#424

Post by Ice_cream_suit »

"Sung—second in rank only to Sheriff Laurie Smith in the sheriff’s office—is accused of deliberately holding back four concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits for Apple’s security team until the Cupertino-based corporation agreed to donate 200 iPads worth about $75,000 to the Sheriff’s Office, Rosen said.

Sung and Jensen allegedly worked together to solicit the exchange of CCW permits for the tech donation from Apple."

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

#425

Post by zionic »

rietta wrote: post #362

Unbelievable capricious enforcement of a may issue permitting regime, asking for and receiving bribes! For those who don't know, in many other States a carry permit must be issued by the issuing authority unless the applicant is disqualified for reasons stated in the law. The irony is these Apple employees previously could have sought and obtained certain out of state licenses by passing the tests and qualifications.…

It’s insane that shall-issue is not the defacto standard. If you meet the requirements (not a felon etc) for exercising what is unarguably a constitutional right your participation in said right should not be at the gov’s leisure.

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

#426

Post by rkt88edmo »

mcny wrote: post #261
threatofrain wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The sheriff's have been very crafty to not generate any evidence of wrongdoing. Unless one of her direct reports decides to turn against her and testify there will be no evidence that she ever directly communicated the monetary requirements to get a permit. Prior to this it has largely been indirect evidence used to probe CCW issuance, looking at the correlation of donations to permits being issued and non-donors getting denied permits. Sheriffs have even quashed that in that many won't readily give out or accept the paperwork to apply for a permit so there is never a record of a denial that is subject to sunshine laws. If you keep it verbal, there is no evidence if no one will testify.

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

#427

Post by closeparen »

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…

Better/cheaper municipal IT is the same kind of public benefit as more urban space or services for poor people. The sheriff's discretion over CCW is the same as the planning commission's discretion over construction.

I think both are slimy but neither are corruption, per se, both institutions are serving the public interest.

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

#428

Post by Rebelgecko »

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.

This sort of pay-for-play CCW permitting isnt unusual: it's very common in the May-issue counties that have the lowest acceptance rates (Bay Area and LA). Normally the bribes are just campaign contributions to the sheriff's reelection, so this is notable in that it was a much bigger bribe.

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

#429

Post by ggreer »

tshaddox wrote: post #217
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concealed is the only option. California doesn't allow sheriffs to issue open carry licenses except in low-population rural counties.

In public, yes, but presumably that doesn’t apply to security guards on Apple property.

In California, you cannot carry concealed except on your own property or on the property of a business you own.[1] Employees cannot carry concealed even if they have permission from the employer.

1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

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

#430

Post by jakear »

sigzero wrote: post #231
jakear wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha! I’d bet the security head did not do this of their own accord, there was almost certainly a higher-up approving it. And what would apple do, replace their head of security (who is willing and able to navigate sociopolitical constructs in order to do their job to the fullest extent possible) with some random fellow who would turn around at the first “no” from some beurocrat and report back to senior leadership tha…

You have no idea if what you are saying is even remotely true.

None at all. Neither did the parent. We’re two (now three) strangers sharing opinions.
Post reply on HN