Live data from Hacker News

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

morganhilltimes.com

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581
post #521

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

Head security guard is not exactly a ‘chief executive’.

And head security guard is very different from head of security. The laws attributing liability to the company don't only apply to actions of chief executive - Apple head of security would definitely qualify.

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

#582
post #61

Why do Apple employees need to carry concealed weapons?

I'm sure there are some legitimate reasons (like responding to a workplace shooter) but I imagine a lot more likely is intimidation...

Really? A concealed carry permit issued subject to a background check is useful for intimidation?

Why not just intimidate without a permit (which wouldn't somehow make things less illegal)?

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

#583
post #541
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I dislike Apple's practices as much as anyone, but when the #2 person at the sheriff's office is the one soliciting the bribe, you have a problem with the police department that even Apple cannot be expected to fix. You can argue that they should have gone straight to the DA, and you might even be right, but the only way for this problem to get fixed is by cleaning house at the police department, not by s…

Keep in mind that it's incredibly rare for any DA to go against the police, so this case is already unusual. We'll have to wait and see if they actually have the evidence / wherewithal to see this one through rather than just settling out of court for a slap on the wrist. Which raises the question, why did it happen this time? My best guess is that the Santa Clara DA did the math, said, "I'm in a liberal part of a li…

Honestly, I think it is because of the high level of the payments it could no longer be ignored, and the sheriff pissed off someone more powerful than them. Usually this stuff would entail a couple of thousand per individual, the whole process was based on insider networking/understanding, no explicit quid pro quo, and the money was slated to an organization that was set up to receive funds for other legitimate purposes so there is some level of transparency. Based on the article, Santa Clara had taken this to a whole new level with what was being demanded and the demands were explicit.

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

#584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: I'm a simpleton I've always had this view that we pay taxes and the city should do those things. That's why we pay taxes. Now if we can get out of paying taxes I'll be glad to put up Wi-Fi.

Here's how you write a quote:

> Steve: I'm a simpleton I've always had this view that we pay taxes and the city should do those things. That's why we pay taxes. Now if we can get out of paying taxes I'll be glad to put up Wi-Fi. reply

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

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If may-issue schemes are applied in a way that evaluates the individual case on neutral and non-discriminatory criteria, even if a subjective element of judgment exists, it certainly can comply with equal protection rights. If they're applied in an unequal way, of course that's different.

If the criteria isn't codified, then how can it be equally applied?

Courts are very familiar with adjudicating such ambiguity and have been throughout history. They simply have to avoid discriminating in ways that violate the law, but other forms of subjectivity.

As a stupid but illustrative hypothetical example, if the official decides each morning whether he will approve all CCW applications he sees that day or none of them based on a die roll before leaving home, and then unilaterally changes it a month later to go based on whether the last digit of the local CBS affiliate's high temperature forecast from the 7am newscast is odd or even, these stupid rules and rule changes would be completely compliant with the equal protection clause.

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

#586

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.

I'd assume individuals who want a permit vs campus with concentrated amounts of high-net-worth individuals is a different problem. I can't fathom why anyone would want to live in a place where they themselves need a CCW permit to feel safe.

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

#587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one is debating that, and the BSIS standards are absurdly low and they are available to everyone. There is no taint in the process for BSIS issuance that has been raised.

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

#588
post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Gun control legislation has deeply racist roots and the left hates talking about it.

That's orthogonal to whether or not the U.S. should have more gun control. Does the U.S. want to join 1st countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan, (etc.) or not?

No thank you. I like my constitutional rights that are actually taken semi-seriously by my fellow citizens and the leaders we elect.

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

#589
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.

The fact that a bribe is necessary is the problem. The second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and the “may issue” vs “shall issue” permitting process is a direct affront to that right. Anyone that meets the legal requirements for a permit should be entitled to one. It shouldn’t be up to the discretion of a public official to anoint chosen ones based on their own personal feelings. Either requirements are met or not. But a public official shouldn’t be evaluating “need.” That’s not the Jon of the public official. That would be like a public official deciding one media outlet should be allowed to publish and another one denied. Equal protection is violated. Two people with identically clean backgrounds should not have one person awarded a permit and another denied. To get a drivers license, you don’t have to prove a need to drive: you pass the test and pay the fee and you are good. And unlike driving, keeping and bearing a firearm is constitutionally protected.

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

#590
post #479

Concealed carry permits in California are the literal definition of privilege, "private law". If you're famous, rich, or the sheriff's friend, you can get one. Otherwise, you can pay a couple hundred bucks to apply and get told no. Rules for thee but not for me.

If you live in a place where you need a concealed carry permit to feel safe, you probably should move to a safer place.
Post reply on HN