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

551–560 of 1001 posts

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

#551

Post by ALittleLight »

kelnos wrote: post #469
crx07 wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

This thread reminds me of John McAfee's bribery guide http://www.whoismcafee.com/the-travel-guide/

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

#552

Post by scurvy »

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.

She had one because the anarcho hippie terrorist groups of SF targeted her and shot up her home several times. When the group was arrested/disbanded, she let her permit lapse.

While I agree it sucks that some rich and powerful people seem to live by a different set of rules, it's not like she had a permit just for kicks.

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

#553

Post by SheinhardtWigCo »

gregschlom wrote: post #307

This story reads straight out like the kind of scenario we have in our yearly mandatory ethics and anti-corruption training: "You're conducting some business with [public institution] and the person you're talking with would like your company to donate something to the local charity. What do you do?" Interesting to see that those hypothetical scenarios aren't so hypothetical.

That “training” is completed by clicking ‘Next’ 50 times, preferably as fast as possible so you can get back to work.

It exists so the company can say it tried to prevent this and shouldn’t be held responsible.

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

#554

Post by baryphonic »

iaw wrote: post #518
nradov wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

26th in homicide according to wikipedia [0] but what is your point? The 'typical' murder involves people that know each other and has a motive. Loose firearm regulations enable mass shootings [1][2] which are more indiscriminate. Everyone has the right to bear arms but what do we do when that infringes on other peoples right to life? I think it's a cogent question. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state…

> Everyone has the right to bear arms but what do we do when that infringes on other peoples right to life? I think it's a cogent question.

Clearly the state has laws against murder. And California even has laws that "enhance" sentencing criteria for anyone guilty of using a firearm in the commission of a felony.[1] Also, "mass shootings" are also illegal and are incredibly rare.

Also, I have a right to "property"/"pursuit of happiness" (per Fifth Amendment and the Declaration of Independence). In the Bay Area, if I leave my laptop in my trunk, it'll be stolen. If you leave CA (or at least the Bay Area) and visit a state with slightly looser restrictions, laptops can peacefully spend a dinner in the trunk without being stolen. I have to imagine that criminals who know they have very little to fear from armed ordinary citizens are emboldened by the restrictions on firearm ownership. By the logic above, the correlation (note: I have no data other than the ubiquitous "BRING YOUR LAPTOP INSIDE!!!" signs all over the place in the Bay Area) must mean that the state is neglecting a right to property, therefore the fun restrictions should be relaxed. Or maybe using aggregate statistics and correlations isn't the best approach to analyzing legal-political issues in the absence of a very strong signal.

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

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

#555

Post by option »

normand1 wrote: post #511

I've lived in the Bay Area most of my life. It's well known the only way to get CCW permits in the Bay Area is to "donate" to the local county sheriff. I'm surprised someone was actually caught. I moved to Washington and got my concealed carry in a few months after filling out paperwork. No "donations" required.

why the Sheriff is not indicted???!!!

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

#556

Post by giantg2 »

btilly wrote: post #509
giantg2 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two party consent doesn't matter here. The federal courts have consistently upheld that it is one's first ammendment right to record public officials in the performance of their duties. As a member of the public, you are permitted to record your interactions with police. Now, could it still end badly? Sure. If they are willing to break the law for a bribe, then why not take it further if they find out you are recordi…

Local police have been noticeably resistant to rules allowing recording. A large fraction of the civil rights violations documented by Amnesty International against BLM protestors were exactly against people who were only recording what was going on. Therefore no matter how much you might be within the right, I would personally not be willing to record the police unless it was under the direction of another police fo…

Well, you do it without their knowledge of course. Cellphone in pocket for audio, etc. When dealing with corrupt people, secrecy is paramount.

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

#557

Post by giantg2 »

tesmar2 wrote: post #501
pageandrew wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unconscionable that Constitutional rights that belong to all Americans are basically paywalled by Sheriffs.

Yep. It’s a racket. Imagine if you had to get your sheriff’s permission to open a radio station — given that you only broadcast party friendly programming.

So the FCC?

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

#558

Post by bassman9000 »

the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe

A private citizen of limited means paying a bribe is somehow reasonable because there's a huge power imbalance.

Comments from this thread condoning bribery.

Bonus irony is that 2A is so broken in CA that even Apple security chief has to go through the "process".

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

#559

Post by giantg2 »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #459
giantg2 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say if the company was benefiting instead of just the individuals.

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

Arming someone for employment is under a different permit from the CCW listed in the story. CCWs would not benefit Apple.

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

#560

Post by cstejerean »

JackFr wrote: post #550
FireBeyond wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for one of the oil giants. They had codified standards for bribery, a la: "While we do not approve of bribery, we recognize that in some places we do business, they are an unfortunate necessity. To that end, we have standardized our practices to keep everyone involved as safe as possible".

I hope there standard was to not do it, because it is a US crime for any US national, citizen or resident as employee, officer or agent of a US corporation to bribe or otherwise corrupt a foreign official. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac...

One common exception is the so called grease payments which you’ll need to get anything done in any reasonable time frame.

> Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform.

Post reply on HN