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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by zepto »

giantg2 wrote: post #546
zepto wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private parties recording conversations without consent is illegal in California.

I've seen a few people on here state this. I really wish people knew their rights better. Federal judges have consistently ruled that recording public officials in the performance of their duties is a right under the first amendment. As a member of the public, you can record your interactions with police without their consent.

It’s clear that this applies to uniformed cops performing duties in public places.

It is much less clear that it applies to a private conversation with a senior officer in a police station.

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

#622

Post by sawjet »

baby wrote: post #590
floren wrote: 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.

If you live in a place where you need to bribe a public official to exercise a constitutional right, you should probably move as well.

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

#623

Post by zbrozek »

baby wrote: post #586
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.

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.

It seems likely that different folks may have different needs or wishes or different circumstances and that "feeling safe" isn't the only reason one may want such a permit.

I have an amateur radio license for no particular reason. I haven't really used it in a decade but that doesn't stop me from renewing. I could imagine folks holding a CCW mostly just because they can.

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

#624

Post by satisfaction »

This really throws water on any claims that corporations are the entities we need to worry about. It's clearly over reliance on governments that is the problem. Restricting the 2nd amendment is bad enough but then extracting value from others to exercise the 2nd amendment is laughable. Anyone that holds California up as a model for the rest of the country really needs to start paying attention.

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

#625

Post by satisfaction »

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.

Being an Apple apologist is one thing but being an apologist for corrupt government officials is reprehensible. I side with the underdog in this case.

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

#626

Post by throwawaygh »

chipsa wrote: post #487
throwawaygh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because I currently cannot get a LCTF from the city... I had no need for that before corona virus, I do need one now. I'm not questioning that you really do need a LTCF, but with COVID and the protests and the election suddenly everyone "needs" a gun. So there's reduced capacity + HUGE surge in demand + severe budget shortfalls. It's not a conspiracy. It's just queuing theory. > Bucks county is issuing it in 15 min…

A right delayed is a right denied. And it's not just queues, apparently. It's the office is closed. The line isn't moving.

The office was closed back in March when pretty much everything was closed. AFAIK it's been open for months, but there's an enormous backlog because the backlog + reduced capacity (need to do everything by appointment for social distancing and keep appointment slots large enough to ensure physical queues don't form) + increased demand.

People are queuing for hours to get COVID tests, hospitals are reaching capacity, and people are rotting in prison because they can't get an appointment in front of a judge. In normal times I would be more sympathetic. There are greater injustices than waiting a few months for your LTCF, and more important forms of justice (habeas corpus) being delayed.

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

#627

Post by floren »

baby wrote: post #590
floren wrote: 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.

I live in New Mexico where I could get a CCW permit essentially guaranteed if I spent $100 on a weekend course. I don't have one, because I don't really feel a need for one--but I could get one if I wanted, just like anyone else in the state. I find it abhorrent that in California, you can only get a permit if you're well-connected: see Dianne Feinstein being the only CCW-holder in San Francisco for years while simultaneously pushing for stronger gun control.

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

#628

Post by wavefunction »

satisfaction wrote: post #624

This really throws water on any claims that corporations are the entities we need to worry about. It's clearly over reliance on governments that is the problem. Restricting the 2nd amendment is bad enough but then extracting value from others to exercise the 2nd amendment is laughable. Anyone that holds California up as a model for the rest of the country really needs to start paying attention.

I guess I'd look at the crime rate of the area to assess the necessity of corporatist CCW permits. The intersection of capitalism and freedom is certainly a rotten terrain though perhaps not in the way you'd hope me to think. Perhaps one can choose none of the above and be ethically absolved.

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

#629

Post by wavefunction »

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…

downvote all throwaways >gun reference, or izzit

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

#630

Post by ridaj »

hedora wrote: post #542
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.

After going through the process of building a house in CA, I believe we should decriminalize offering of bribes, but not solicitation of bribes. $100K’s of dollars (>> 10% of the total project cost) have been extracted from us by various bureaucratic processes that are outside what is explicitly specified by the law. I am confident that this would not have happened if we were well politically connected, and had frien…

Can you be more specific? The experience I had with house construction permitting in a big California city was completely above-the-table and reasonable.
Post reply on HN