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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by unishark »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #700
zepto wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it ‘Apple’ or is it the head of security though?

Depends on how disposed you are to like the company I guess? When a high level director at Google does something bad, we say on here that Google did something bad. Same at Facebook. I don't know why it should be different for Apple.

But the issue in question at the moment isn't about whether we get to rub things in the face of apple-loving posters. The question is about whether this individual wields the supposed power Apple has in this situation.

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

#802

Post by smokey_circles »

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.

>It also doesn't matter who initiated the bribe.

What a silly thing to say.

Whether or not you initiated a bribe does not defend your participation in it. True

But ignoring the balance of power for, what appears to be, a reason to hate on Apple is just daft. Shockingly so.

A police offer demanding a bribe is not the same as a police officer accepting one. Just ignores the entire social dynamic of humans. Power dynamics are the central theme of human relationships. This is just a weird form of victim blaming, though not for a moment am I suggesting anyone is innocent here.

The Undersheriff should be crucified as a means of deterrence. You can't have positions of power occupied by those seeking to corrupt them. Which, I think, is not far off your argument, you just want to seem to needlessly drag Apple into this.

They weren't involved, beyond their employee basically stealing their stock. Is that somehow their fault? Should we charge them with criminal negligence for trusting someone? That's not going to have long term consequences for whistleblowers at all

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

#803

Post by treeman79 »

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.

My childhood home was burgled several times and death threats written on it. I was assaulted several times.

But I’m not rich and powerful, so.

I recall Sherif telling my dad if he shot someone, to make sure the body was in the house pointing toward the inside. That way he wouldn’t be arrested.

So we were under constant assault, and if we tried to defend ourselves we had to make sure everything was “perfect” so as not to get arrested.

Complete insanity.

Moved away as fast as possible.

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

#804

Post by treeman79 »

simonh wrote: post #651
sokoloff wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One rule for me, another for thee...

Er, no. Different laws at different times. If CC were made illegal, it would be illegal for her too. Or is she actually advocating for different laws for different people?

She and her class are above the laws.

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

#805

Post by technothrasher »

kls wrote: post #796
salawat wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a matter of principle, I will contest any attempt to frame the right to carry on one's person a weapon into the same vein as a driver's license. It is an explicitly granted right. If you look at how traffic enforcement has worked out (in spite of the fact we still play it up as a privilege), senior citizens and the disabled are still at a major disadvantage in mobility in their more enfeebled years, and no semblan…

I am not your opposition on this, just stating how the law currently looks at it, and citing the precedence that has been cited before, specifically gun control in the wild west. That being said, I am OK with it being a privilege if it were a universal shall issue. I would prefer that it be decided that it is a universal right, but I am ok with either outcome. I am not a fan of may issue as it tends to be a privilege…

You seem much more level headed and well informed than most of the people arguing gun ownership on either side of the issue. I'd just like to point out a small thing, that by calling the automatic weapons ban in the 80's the "AWB" you are conflating terms between the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (known as FOPA) and the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (known as the AWB). People are generally confused between the legal definitions of "automatic weapon" and "assault weapon". I find it useful to be very specific about which you are discussing to avoid confusion and petty arguments about terminology that can keep the discussion from moving forward.

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

#806

Post by mprovost »

jb775 wrote: post #712
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>States adopt this policy as a way of punting CC policy making down to the local level. They implement it as a wink and nod end run around the 14th amendment. The whole purpose is so that the states can play dumb when the towns "accidentally" install sheriffs/police chiefs who turn out to be racist and deny all the irish/blacks/latinos their rights.

I call BS considering 99% of sheriffs are locally elected officials. They aren't "accidentally installed". On a side note, the nice thing about sheriffs being elected is they don't have to listen to a god damn thing the state tells them to do (within confines of law obviously). They work directly for the people of their community.

But what if you are a minority in that community and they aren't dependent on your vote to be elected?

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

#807

Post by woahAcademia »

There's a phrase "where there is rot, there is more"

You bet Apple has arranged bribes across the world and companies. Not saying any specific FAANG is better, but there seems to be a crowd of people who repeat commercials about privacy and security despite both being disproved on a weekly basis.

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

#808

Post by unishark »

scurvy wrote: post #680
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point was to show that she had a legitimate need, then let the permit lapse when she no longer had a need. She didn't have one for an abuse of power. I wasn't debating the merits of the CA shall issue policy. In other words, don't pick a fight where there isn't one.

Don't senators get (armed) govt security protection anyway when they are threatened?

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

#810

Post by Hnrobert42 »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #750
hedora wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I live in a developing country with a ton of bribery that is way, way down the Transparency International rankings. Your ideas come across as pretty naive and out of touch with how bribery works in the real world. Which is okay, not everyone is an expert on everything. But your comment would come across a lot better if you had used some tentative language instead of definitive language on a topic it is clear you don'…

I second this description. Bribery and corruption in Vietnam is endemic. A new employee gets a job by paying their first year’s salary. That means they have to collect bribes to survive. After their first year collecting bribes, they habit is engrained.

Edit: I just noticed you are also in Vietnam. So sad for such an otherwise lovely place.

Post reply on HN