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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by floatingatoll »

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’ve known (without proof) about this occurring in Santa Clara for at least fifteen years thanks to one of my doctors complaining about the corrupt permitting process, so I’m just happy to see that the DA finally doing something about it (with proof). I assume the DA has some political reason that it finally matters to end this, or else they would have ended it ages ago.

If you’re curious to learn more about this kind of corruption, California has another bribe at the state level: the “11-99 Foundation” offers a license plate frame for a $2500 donation that, when placed on your car, mysteriously reduces your chances of receiving speeding and carpool tickets to near-zero — even from CHP. This is apparently legal, since traffic stops are discretionary, and no protections exist to detect or prevent discretionary bias prior to the stop. (Non-caucasians, 11-99 is not rumored to protect against racism, and may well inspire it under the guise of “heard a report of a stolen car”.)

I think it’s incredibly evil that this is tolerated and I don’t give them anything.

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

#462

Post by kelnos »

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.

IANAL, but I think a general rule of thumb is: will this bribe get me out being detained against my will (or worse) for doing nothing wrong? If yes, then it's ok. But: if I don't pay this bribe, the only consequence will be that my company doesn't win this contract -- that's not an ok bribe to pay.

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

#463

Post by magila »

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…

This sort of thing is the result of a permitting policy called may-issue. Basically it means the party that issues permits, usually the local sheriff or police department, can deny a concealed carry application for any reason. States adopt this policy as a way of punting CC policy making down to the local level.

In practice the may-issue policy has repeatedly proven to be an irresistible opportunity for graft. Despite this some states continue to maintain may-issue policies, including California and New York.

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

#464

Post by rkt88edmo »

throwawaygh wrote: post #48
calvinmorrison wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> For example, in Philadelphia they have closed the permitting office repeatedly for COVID, bystepping the law which requires them to issue a permit in 45 days, by simply not accepting applications. This was a HUGE deal in the PA gun community, and I simply cannot understand why. 1. PA extended the expiration date on existing permits that expired after February until Dec 31. It was only new permits requests where the…

I'll throw out a few things , even though I don't know much about PA. In some places if your permit expires you are now a criminal and breaking the law, which may put your ability to own any firerms at risk, so staying in compliance is a huge deal. Also, lapses in permits may submit you to a whole new round of scrutiny when you reapply. Often, the fees we pay for these permits are meant to fund the work to issue them. It isn't uncommon for those fees to get diverted elsewhere, so now we paid for services we aren't receiving. These things have happened to firearms owners so we are hypersensitized to these issues.

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

#465

Post by anigbrowl »

kennywinker wrote: post #312
nl wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Deniability. i.e. the sheriff can say the permit wasn’t issued because its at their discretion, not because someone didn’t pay a bribe. That said, even with a "shall" situation there are hoops to jump thru that can be used to set this same kinda situation up.

You just get a recording of them soliciting the bribe. Not so hard.

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

#466

Post by paxys »

thathndude wrote: post #389
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.”

Steve Jobs - We pay our taxes

Apple's accounting team - Well actually..

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

#467

Post by rkt88edmo »

da_big_ghey wrote: post #37
t-writescode wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that major strides against Gun Control were originally performed by Ronald Reagan in California ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ), I have trouble imagining a Conservative Supreme Court will take a textualist perspective on gun control laws, despite their political leaning and assumptions here. edit: I can't spell :/

Yep, this is one of the best examples of the racism that underlies a large amount of gun control. For other examples, see the laws targeting Saturday-night specials, or even the army/navy laws in the Jim Crow south. Today we're seeing much of this repeated with increased paperwork requirements, taxes, and price increases. Regulatory requirements and ATF overreach decreases supply and helps move affordable firearms ou…

Similar tactics when it comes to voter's rights/vote suppression. This is where the brain breaking schism happens. Same tools used to restrict vitally important freedoms, but the political divide will rabidly endorse one but fight the other. They are all attacks on freedom and democracy.

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

#468

Post by anigbrowl »

thathndude wrote: post #386
Spooky23 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Go back to the recording of the meeting where the undersheriff asks for a large donation to the Sheriff's department to compare.

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

#469

Post by kelnos »

crx07 wrote: post #423
chmod775 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think people in the overall thread are getting confused about different kinds of bribes.

A bribe needed to get a lucrative contract for your company: not ok.

Paying off a local cop so he won't throw you in jail for no reason: totally ok.

The US is concerned with preventing the former, not the latter. I would be surprised if any US company is advocating people pay the first kind of bribe, at least publicly, as that's quite illegal in the US (I'm sure it happens, but as quietly as possible). But I would not be surprised if US companies tell employees to pay the second kind of bribe, as well they should.

Post reply on HN