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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by will4274 »

samatman wrote: post #336
ineedasername wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it theft is a very far stretch. I know there are stories of police abusing this & taking cash of people in random traffic stops: That's theft. But a huge portion of asset seizures are forfeits from drug crimes. The DEA along takes about $500 million a year in this way, and state, country & municipal departments take even more.

No, it isn't. You are misinformed about the tawdry reality of asset seizure in the United States. If the police take assets from you, you might think you get them back unless you're convicted of a crime. Far from it: you must prove the innocence of your seized assets to get them back, and good luck with that. That this exists at all is a scandal and a moral hazard. Seizure should be strictly temporary until a convict…

> you must prove the innocence of your seized assets to get them back

This isn't true. The burden of evidence in civil asset forfeiture is still on the state. The standard is preponderance of doubt, as per the norm in civil court, not the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil forfeiture case still requires a judge or jury to convict your assets.

From Wikipedia:

> The government simply files a civil action in rem against the property itself, and then generally must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is forfeitable under the applicable forfeiture statute. Civil forfeiture is independent of any criminal case, and because of this, the forfeiture action may be filed before indictment, after indictment, or even if there is no indictment. Likewise, civil forfeiture may be sought in cases in which the owner is criminally acquitted of the underlying crimes ...

> — Craig Gaumer, Assistant United States Attorney, 2007

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

#682

Post by o-__-o »

rkt88edmo wrote: post #526
zepto wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know Apple was stepping in on behalf of employees? It sounds like it was the Employees alone.

The articles frame it as the Head of Apple security acting on the behalf of 4 potential Apple security team licensees - so at least 3 of those Apple employees aren't him. He's acting on behalf of his employees, I'd say that is Apple stepping in.

And this is why your company develops strict anti-bribery programs as soon as reasonably possible.

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

#683

Post by onetimemanytime »

Look at it differently. In some countries, say Russia, the system and laws are designed in such a way that bribes are needed to do business. Simple as that. Don't pay bribes and 100 cops and forensic accountants will show at your headquarters, closing it down and jailing you.

Now, Apple HAS to protect its headquarters and people. For that you need licenses which apparently weren't given. So, close Apple headquarters down or...? 99.99% of the fault here lies with the laws /state. The problem can be solved by donating before you ask the for "favors," so no quid-pro-quo. I'd think that Apple generates quite a bit of business for the county /state so they should favor them a bit. Or at least don't try to stop them.

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

#684

Post by ip26 »

Reelin wrote: post #670
ip26 wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when was CCW a Constitutional right? You don't need one to carry.

Unless your state is open carry you do in fact need a permit to carry in public. In fact, some open carry states (ex Texas) still require a permit to do so. I'm always frustrated but amused at how uninformed many of my fellow Americans are about the gun laws here (frequently it's the ones pushing for additional laws).

Ok, you appear to be right about California. In my defense, I live elsewhere.

One of the minor pitfalls of Federalism- I can't keep track of the laws in all 50 states.

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

#685

Post by ngngngng »

baby wrote: post #661
zbrozek wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you can kill anyone with your amateur radio license though

I've almost died of boredom a few times on some HAM radio youtube channels

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

#686

Post by o-__-o »

btilly wrote: post #601
giantg2 wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And now they just claim that it wasn't them in the recording. The concealment doesn't exactly help audio quality.

Secret recording protip: get the target to identify themselves in a unique manner. Such as affirmative responses when called by their name and nickname. A certain action others can corroborate such as a triple high pitched sneeze. Or sounds that are unique to them such as a cell phone text message chime. Combine the above for maximum impact.

Present this to a lawyer and watch them work their magic.

Good luck!

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

#687

Post by kmonsen »

rkt88edmo wrote: post #443
kmonsen wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think CA law will not let you have any loaded weapons transported without CCW. And loaded weapons is kind of needed to protect VIPs.

The requirements to get your "guard card" in CA with the endorsement to carry a firearm a very low bar to pass. You see plenty of people making barely over minimum wage doing this. It is the "concealed" portion that requires the permit that can not be readily obtained by security guards without jumping through the same process as Joe Public which is regulated by the local City and County law enforcement in CA.

Thanks, it looks like this is the correct answer. Seems like that option should have been open and what they should have done instead of agreeing to the bribe.

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

#688

Post by dodobirdlord »

beervirus wrote: post #315
tshaddox wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Surely carrying a gun somewhere where there are no other guns immensely increased the chance that you’ll be killed by a gun, since the number of guns in the vicinity went from zero to one.

Carrying a gun makes it more likely that I’ll shoot myself?

It does, yes. The majority of firearm deaths in the US are suicides, and the majority of suicides are committed with a firearm. The suicide rate is several times higher among men who own guns or regularly handle guns than it is among men who do not. It's clear that gun ownership has a high propensity to convert a survivable mental health crisis into a suicide. A US adult (but especially a man) who owns a gun is far more likely over their lifetime to use the gun on themself than they are to use it to defend themself.

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

#689

Post by mattnewton »

I've taken the stock anti bribery web "training" multiple times now at multiple FAANG companies; the first time was at Apple. And every time I wonder "who is this for? Who thinks a little bribery is going to end well for them and their company!?"

Well, I guess I have an answer now. I wonder if this is actually much more common than I've realized.

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

#690

Post by function_seven »

will4274 wrote: post #668
outworlder wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, it's really theft. Were it not theft, the property would only be confiscated at the end of legal proceedings, IF it turned out it was related to the crime in question, IF the person was convicted. If those conditions did not hold, the assets should be returned. In actuality, no crime is required for the property to be confiscated. It can be as simple as carrying a "substantial" amount of money in your per…

Hard disagree on principle. We have two types of court - criminal for locking people up, and civil for dealing with money. For locking people up, we require beyond a reasonable doubt. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted and all that. For taking somebody's money, we require it to more likely than not (preponderance of evidence) be the correct result. You call this a "low bar" but it's the…

The different burdens specified in civil vs. criminal proceedings do make sense. No argument here.

It's a stretch to then convert criminal penalties into civil ones via the forfeiture process. Read this passage and tell me if this sounds like anything resembling due process:

> A month-and-a-half later police came back—this time to seize their house, forcing the Sourvelises and their children out on the street that day. Authorities came with the electric company in tow to turn off the power and even began locking the doors with screws, the Sourvelises say. Authorities won't comment on the exact circumstances because of pending litigation regarding the case.

> Police and prosecutors came armed with a lawsuit against the house itself.

So a few things. One, there was no civil court judgement authorizing this. The police decided on their own to take the house. Two, the value of the judgement is literally "how ever much this house is worth." Three, the government sued the house itself. That doesn't even make sense. A house is an inanimate object.

People should be sued, not stuff.

If the government believes they have a legitimate civil complaint, they're welcome to file it in court. The defendants and the government can then argue their cases, and a judge will use the appropriate legal standards to render a decision.

In these cases, the "judgement" is enforced first, and the targets (now without financial resources) must show beyond a preponderance of evidence that they're innocent.

Post reply on HN