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

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Post by closeparen »

rkt88edmo wrote: post #410
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…

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?

Not against individuals, but against companies? Absolutely. There was a big push to do more "value capture" from the Big Tech commuter shuttle buses in exchange for permission to run on San Francisco streets. It was largely stymied by state law, which SF activists didn't quite have the momentum to change, but it was a big thing in local politics for a while.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco-accused-...

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

#452

Post by consumer451 »

zorpner wrote: post #390
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.

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.

I am not sure why you were being downvoted, exactly. While there is a difference between the two terms, it seems like an area that firms could easily fudge, until someone actually investigated the specific case.

> What is the Difference Between Bribery and Facilitation Payments?

> Facilitation payments are different from bribes in that they’re offered or solicited in return for a service a person or a company is entitled to receive. In contrast, bribes are offered in return for undue and illegal advantage. [0]

Do we know if these executives were deserving of the CCP? It would appear they were, from the post’s link:

> 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.

The much larger corruption seems to be on the LEO side to me. Which of the two actors swore an oath to uphold the law?

If it wasn’t for clickbait, the headline would focus on the LEO.

[0] https://www.ganintegrity.com/compliance-glossary/facilitatio...

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

#453

Post by dboreham »

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.

Hmm. From the article this wasn't a payment of cash to an official. It was a donation in kind to the police dept. I don't know any more than is reported in the article but I will say that some years ago I was subject to a similar "offer". Much smaller in scope, and the official wasn't in law enforcement, but similar enough in essence. At the time I thought it a little weird but also assumed "that must be how things work here". I passed because the cost wasn't worth the benefit to me. I certainly did not think that I should go inform the police that this official had solicited a bribe.

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

#454

Post by nradov »

iaw wrote: post #297
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.

California has the most stringent gun laws but also the a lowest gun violence death rate per capita. More people were allowed to pursue the "life" option in the Declaration of Independence. The first item of unalienable rights our forefathers stated all people had. What do you do when two rights directly infringe upon eachother?

California has the 7th lowest gun death rate.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/...

California is 23rd in homicide rate.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality...

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

#455

Post by User23 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #317
throwawaygh wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 problem is that, at least in many jurisdictions, gun permits basically only exist as a means for police to solicit bribes. There's literally an entire industry of people whose job is bribing police departments to get gun permits. C.f.: htt…

I know an urban county in California where it's an open secret that one can greatly increase one's chance of having a carry permit approved by making the maximum allowed contribution to the sheriff's reelection campaign.

This kind of reminds me of the UC admissions bribery scandal. There are legally approved ways to bribe schools and politicians, so if one is inclined to do so, at least follow them. But in both cases the idiots in question have gone about it in a flagrantly illegal fashion. I am not condoning the practice, but merely recognizing the system as it actually functions.

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

#456

Post by tcbasche »

mlindner wrote: post #215
sandworm101 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who pay bribes for non-essential special treatment are as much criminals as those who ask for bribes. This guy has serious resources at his disposal and is allegedly willing to pay bribes. One must wonder if he has paid any others. I have little sympathy.

> non-essential Having weapons for your security officers is quite essential, especially for a company as high profile as Apple.

Welcome to the USA I guess

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

#457

Post by [deleted] »

azernik wrote: post #398
thathndude wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Officials administrating the permitting process have discretion to act." City councils are political bodies, and within their jurisdictions are the ultimate authority on what should and should not be allowed. LEOs are employees of the state, and are meant to follow the dictates of the legislature or other political body that governs them. If you want to negotiate a legitimate trade of public donation in exchange for…

[deleted]

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

#458

Post by jkaplowitz »

giantg2 wrote: post #214
jkaplowitz wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The individual was arranging a donation to be provided by the company, which only didn't happen because of the investigation itself. That is, the bribe would have been paid by Apple.

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

This article discusses the two circumstances under which US states may attribute criminal liability to a corporation: https://law.jrank.org/pages/744/Corporate-Criminal-Responsib...

Either of these standards would probably apply to a head of security who commits the crime as part of seeking concealed carry permits for an Apple security team.

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

#459

Post by jkaplowitz »

giantg2 wrote: post #383
thatguy0900 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This was to indeed benefit Apple, by arming their security team.

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

#460

Post by rkt88edmo »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #18
binarycodedhex wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived there for 35 years. Her Majesty Laurie only bestows a few CCWs to a handful of business people and her buddies. People can apply for CCWs all they want, but she'll never issue them willingly. She's a bureaucrat and a crook keeping the populace defenseless and maintaining LE job security. https://imgur.com/anZTMPx

Imagining getting indicted for having to bribe a local official to exercise an essential right, specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, and held up repeatedly in the courts (Hello DC v. Heller). It's a situation where there are two classes, the haves and have nots. If you aren't politically connected in NJ, NY, CA, etc - good luck. If you exercise these rights, you will end up in a prison cell. Even places like PA…

If you know that much, you know that Heller and McDonald do not address arms outside the home :)
Post reply on HN