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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by bsder »

giantg2 wrote: post #361
bsder wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the company? Because you don't just randomly cough up a couple hundred anything from a company like Apple without it appearing on the books somewhere. If it didn't appear on the books anywhere, then it sounds like Apple gave this department a quite significant "petty cash" fund and used this guy and department to do unsavory things so that the higher-ups can have plausible deniability. Yeah, the company needs t…

Most of these companies do have charity/donation programs. How do you tell which are legitimate vs a bribe like this?

A legitimate "charity/donation" request will get transferred to the "charity/donation" department with appropriate paperwork.

A bribe like this will get buried into somebody's "untracked cash" account.

The problem is that this is "Standard Operating Procedure" for "Security" departments as they're generally ex-police themselves. That's why they didn't think anything of it.

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

#532

Post by closeparen »

prvc wrote: post #440
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.

Apple leaders have spoken publicly in favor of such deprivations. It would be interesting to check whether the company itself has made contributions to that cause under the guise of charity.

Was there any indication that one of these security personnel failed a background check? Used a straw purchaser or gun show loophole? Had friends and family worried about what he planned to do? Had an active domestic violence case?

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

#533

Post by jasonladuke0311 »

alasdair_ wrote: post #151

I thought everyone knew that the best way to bribe the police for a ccw is to buy a poor rural town a new squad car in exchange for them letting you become a police officer (with no actual hours). Once you are a cop, federal law allows concealed carry in all 50 states, regardless of state law.

A cute trick I saw when working in a gun store was getting deputized in some two-horse town so you could buy post-sample machineguns[0].

I looked up one customer's "agency" and the town didn't exist. It was like 4 abandoned houses and it looked (from Google Maps) like no one had been through there in years.

[0] A machinegun manufactured after the passage of the 1986 Hughes Amendment is non-transferrable and can only be possessed by law enforcement agencies or dealers (SOT) with a "demo letter". Dudes effectively were LEOs in a non-existent town and bought machineguns that otherwise couldn't be owned by individuals.

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

#534

Post by sokoloff »

nradov wrote: post #392
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading in the calguns forums a few years back that sheriffs had de-facto outlawed concealed carry in CA with this extortionate program. By the way Apples head of security isn’t the only one. Nanci Pelosi has had a CCW for a long time while simultaneously fighting to suppress gun ownership in her own city and state.

That's nothing new. Senator Dianne Feinstein got a permit to carry a concealed handgun in San Francisco. There has always been one set of rules for the powerful and another set for the rest of us.

One rule for me, another for thee...

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

#535

Post by rkt88edmo »

closeparen wrote: post #451
rkt88edmo wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Agree, and targeting a very small subset of companies would be a pretty hard bar to pass when they should be crafting laws that treat all commercial traffic fairly. I remember it all well, I follow bicycle and transportation stuff.

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

#536

Post by rhino369 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #493
magila wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Despit…

>States adopt this policy as a way of punting CC policy making down to the local level. They implement it as a wink and nod end run around the 14th amendment. The whole purpose is so that the states can play dumb when the towns "accidentally" install sheriffs/police chiefs who turn out to be racist and deny all the irish/blacks/latinos their rights.

No, otherwise you'd seem them in areas with high racial strife.

It's a way of allowing rich limousine liberals to get security guards with guns, while denying the common person the same right.

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

#537

Post by giantg2 »

tshaddox wrote: post #476
giantg2 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The driving laws except for recklessness are very well defined.

That’s not the case. There are tons of driving laws that are based essentially on a subjective idea of what is safe or reasonable. Laws about cargo being secured safely. Laws about the driver’s view not being unreasonably obstructed. Laws about the driver being distracted. Laws about exercising appropriate caution in response to traffic, weather and road conditions, the presence of pedestrians and other dangers and o…

Not when you look at case law. Also some of that varies from state to state.

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

#538

Post by tptacek »

rietta wrote: post #432
zionic wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is an argument to be made that licensing in general is a poll tax. There is an equal protection argument against not recognizing permits issued to out of State residents who meet the same standards except for residency. Sadly, I am not holding my breath to see either come to the test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ

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

#539

Post by smallnamespace »

One of my econ profs proposed legalizing the payment of solicited bribes in India [1].

So if an official solicits a bribe, you pay it, then can immediately report them with no legal repercussions. This removes the incentive to hide corruption and let it fester.

This also strongly discourages people from asking for bribes in the first place.

[1] https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/50335.html

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

#540

Post by smnrchrds »

acituan wrote: post #393
t-writescode wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, this sounds like it's coming from someone that lives in a country where bribes aren't commonplace. It's good that you and I both live in countries like that; but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common. From the other comments in this thread, it's suggesting that the CCW permit process in California is very bad and broken and these bribes have been an illegal method of actuall…

> but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common. Can you give any examples of those countries? Countries with high amount of bribing tend to also be countries with large off-the-record economies, therefore I am skeptical of that proposition. FYI in the US, you can claim tax deductibility on bribes paid in foreign countries iff they are not legally classified as bribes in the respective lo…

>> but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes

> Can you give any examples of those countries?

Germany used to be like this, but it they changed the law many years ago. I don't know if there are any such countries remaining. The article below is from 1995, when bribes were still tax-deductible.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1995-08-06/germany-w...

Post reply on HN