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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by tesmar2 »

antpls wrote: post #17
cbozeman wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason there are needs for concealed carry every single place on Earth. You don't want bad actors to know who is - and who isn't - armed.

That is simply not true. There is no need for concealed carry in France nor UK, for example. Even the Wikipedia article on the topic lists numerous scientific studies showing that the effectiveness of concealed carry varies in place and time, and that there is almost no link between concealed carry and lower crime rates : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_Unite...

Tell that to the poor souls at Charlie Hebdo.

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

#572

Post by StanislavPetrov »

throwawaygh wrote: post #120
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.

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…

Unfortunately, not only is it explicable, its common practice. Just a few years ago in NYC some of the highest ranking police officers in the city along with members of the prosecutors office were involved in a very similar scheme where they were selling gun permits (which are very difficult to get in NYC) to Orthodox Jews. To make things worse, the political connections of those involved in this massive crime allowed their names to be mostly excised from the reporting of this story in a variety of news outlets despite the case being covered for more than a year.

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/04/25/nypd-gun-license-bri...

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

#573

Post by tesmar2 »

giantg2 wrote: post #557
tesmar2 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Bad example on my part. Let’s just say to have a conversation with a neighbor on any particular subject.

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

#574

Post by TaylorAlexander »

scurvy wrote: post #552
nradov wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that’s the whole point of a CCW permit. If you’re at risk you should be allowed to have one, and yet she works to make that impossible for all but the powerful and connected. It’s fine that she has one but it’s not fine that she doesn’t let regular Californians go through the same application process without money or connections.

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

#576

Post by jefftk »

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...

I think you're assuming your parent is an American?

(Looks like they're Australian: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25194634)

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

#577

Post by alsetmusic »

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.

As a huge fan (with ink on my skin since 2000) and as a former employee, I’m deeply disappointed. I’m sad for the company’s employees who have to live with guilt by association. I know that the people there believe in what they do and their work has been tainted. For shame.

Slightly offhand, I wonder how this will alter Apple’s security approach down the line. Not whether they believe in security, but the right road to get there if there’s a shakeup.

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

#578

Post by jkaplowitz »

giantg2 wrote: post #563
jkaplowitz wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CCW is the wrong kind of permit for armed employment. There's a different kind for that. The CCWs would only benefit the individuals, not the company.

Maybe the news article was being informal, or maybe they specifically wanted to carry concealed and not open. It still seems like whatever was being requested was on behalf of the security team he was overseeing as his primary job duty at Apple.

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

#579

Post by 15155 »

acomjean wrote: post #76
ciarannolan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume these are high-level security personnel at Apple HQ. It doesn't seem unreasonable to have armed security at a place like that. > A grand jury alleges that Thomas Moyer promised to donate 200 iPads worth $70,000 to the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Office in exchange for four concealed firearm licenses for Apple employees. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/11/23/apple-...

I worked at a defense contractor. We didn't have security guards that were armed. It was hard to get into the facility, but still.

Did the CEO of that defense contractor ever come around?

He probably had a protection team, as do most individuals in similar circumstances.

Cook, Zuckerberg, et al. have private armed security.

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

#580

Post by giantg2 »

rkt88edmo wrote: post #566
giantg2 wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It absolutely benefits them. Nearly all executive protection teams are concealing. There is no public concealed carry of firearms in CA outside your property without a CCW. There is no parallel professional license that will allow you to do so in public. This is part of what lead to this weird situation for Apple.

Concealed or exposed, you need a BSIS license as an armed guard (executive protection) in CA.
Post reply on HN