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

861–870 of 1001 posts

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

#861

Post by hobs »

scottlamb wrote: post #486
thathndude wrote: post #389

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.”

It was probably more "even a broken clock is right twice a day" than a principled stand. He was notoriously cheap. He avoided paying child support for a long time, short-changed Wozniak, etc. [1] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-jerk-2011-10

After working there for a bit the most amazing story I heard is that he would lease a new car every six months so that he wouldnt need to get a plate put on it so he could park in the handicap spot without getting ticketed.

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

#862

Post by _23sd »

dehrmann wrote: post #447
jonas21 wrote: post #130

Kinda reminds me of that time the Cupertino City Council asked Steve Jobs for free Wifi and iPads in the hearing to approve Apple's new campus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M&t=790 But I guess they all had a good laugh in the end, so it doesn't count?

Half of the joke was probably the Cupertino city council being jealous of Google providing free wifi for Mountain View. Jobs has a good point about "paying taxes." In the last few years, a lot of people in the Bay Area outside tech are saying things like "why doesn't tech do more to build more housing." They pay taxes, and tech workers living in the cities are paying income and property taxes. The communities should…

"We pay our taxes" sounds a bit disingenuous from a company that is famous for aggressively offshoring its profits to avoid paying US and California taxes, the latter of which would directly contribute to local housing programs.

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

#863

Post by gvfdabgea »

disown wrote: post #610
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.

> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Really? HN has been a den of Apple, Microsoft, etc worship for a while now. In another thread on the frontpage, people are encouraging people to buy Apple TV. It's partly the social media PR teams these companies hire, it's the advertising and it's also the type of people HN attracts. It's sickening but what can you do.

yes; a forum for computer enthusiasts filled with people enthusiastic about computers.... what has this place come to indeed

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

#864

Post by rsync »

kls wrote: post #760
lsllc wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly right! When there's no clear set of criteria for a permit and people get denied for this or that or maybe no reason at all. Just try getting a (unrestricted) LTC in Boston, near impossible -- unless you "have friends". This is how LTCs (License To Carry) work in Massachusetts, it's city by city dependent on the Chief of Police. The criteria should be clear and contestable in court. Like it or not, it'…

I say this as a big proponent of the right to self defense on a personal level, the current legal view is that, gun possession in the public square is not a right, it is a privilege, one that can be revoked as seen fit by the government. What is a right, is to keep and bear arms, this means one can maintain possession of their arms without fear of confiscation on their personal property or property in which they have…

"This is why even as far back as the early 1800's it was not uncommon for local sheriff's to mandate a leave your guns at the sheriffs post at the edge of town policies. Yet, the local barkeep could still have a shotgun under the counter. Town was the public square, where the local bar, while a public establishment, was a private proprietorship."

I wish people had a better sense of this earlier social arrangement.

It was the most conservative of approaches to gun possession and was imposed by the town elders who wanted to regulate and order behavior in the public sphere.

Now we find ourselves in bizarro world where firearms politics are exactly flipped: a free wheeling "let-do" policy is championed by "conservatives" and a highly regulated policy is championed by "liberals".

In reality, a historical perspective shows us that the ownership of modern weapons by average citizens is off the charts liberal. That is absolutely where it sits on a political spectrum of rights. It is, historically, the prerogative of the most conservative and reactionary interests to prohibit/restrict arms.

All that to say: I prefer the conservative approach. I, too, was very young once and very excited to exercise my rights and privileges ... I open-carried regularly, had a CCW, etc., and the result was a lot of discomfort and bad feelings. Carrying a firearm is a provocative act and it makes sense that conservative actors in a community would try to keep that at bay.

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

#865

Post by ascagnel_ »

geofft wrote: post #373
ineedasername wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And calling asset forfeiture "theft" is quite an extreme interpretation when it's mostly legitimate seizures from criminal enterprises (especially the drug trade).

It's only "legitimate" because there's a law saying they can do it. It's the removal of property without due process. I'm not on team "taxation is theft," but if this isn't theft, private property doesn't exist. (I'd be totally okay with seizing property from convicted criminal enterprises with due process . Excusing this because it happens to mostly affect people who turn out to have been criminals seems about as de…

At most, “asset forfeiture” should be “asset frozen, for the duration of a civil trial against the owner”:

- Anything movable (automobiles, jewelry, etc) can be seized by police and entered as evidence, but reasonable accommodations must be made (eg: if taking the defendant’s luxury car, a working car must be provided in its stead, so the defendant can still go to work, attend court, etc). If the defendant is found not guilty, the items must be returned without delay and without cost to the defendant, and the police are to be held responsible for any damage or wear during the period of the trial.

- For immovable objects (real estate), the court may block any sale or transfer of ownership of the property. The court should evaluate the condition of the property and its contents at the start of legal proceedings, and the defendant would be responsible for any damage or loss (within their control) that occurs after that date. If the defendant loses, the police may take ownership of the home.

- Cash must be placed into an escrow account. If the defendant is found not guilty, the funds must be released back to the defendant without delay, and the police should be held responsible for any money missing from the account.

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

#866

Post by rsync »

dash2 wrote: post #812
wbl wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Army and Navy laws, Cruikshanks v. US, point systems for handguns, gun control in CA are irredeemably motivated by the fear of giving black men the means to defend themselves and their rights.

I find it hard to believe that Californians' main reason for gun control is anti-black racism. I'd like to hear some evidence for that claim.

"I find it hard to believe that Californians' main reason for gun control is anti-black racism. I'd like to hear some evidence for that claim."

Here is a picture that seems, almost, to come from am alternate reality:

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...

"Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”"

...

"The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions."

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

#867

Post by function_seven »

will4274 wrote: post #763
geofft wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A man breaks into my house and steals my television. A few days later, the police find someone sort of matching the description I give with a few hundred dollars cash in his wallet. He has an alibi, though not very solid proof, and a few details don't line up. The jury doesn't convict him. Am I entitled to the money out of his wallet on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard? It's only money.

Yes. You can sue somebody for stealing from you in civil xourt even if they are found not guilty (or more commonly, not proesecuted) for theft in criminal court and win. It happens all the time. Edit: see e.g. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-thef...

Wait, I don't want the bother of bringing a lawsuit. Can I just take the money now? If the alleged thief is innocent, they can sue me for the money to be returned.

Also, I didn't just take the cash out of his pocket, I also took his car, as I suspect he used it to drive to my house to commit the crime.

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

#868

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

wongarsu wrote: post #790
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the other poster had feelings about the police protests? That person aside... What a time for some people to hate guns and recommend how only the evil racist police should have them.

The wide availability of guns seems to be one of the major underlying reasons for the evil police. Taking them away wouldn't magically fix things, but it would help keep things from regressing after fixing the more direct problems

Show me a gun control law that doesn’t explicitly exempt police.

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

#869

Post by coldtea »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #840
coldtea wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, at least in that issue, people on Reddit's conspiracy theory boards are less gullible than you, and other people believing these things don't happen/are rare, and that we live in a Disney world... (And a difference with the CEO, that you probably missed, is that they have more likely than not done these kind of bribes themselves).

I'm gullible for my skepticism about an anonymous internet commenter's "CEO" friend's generic "in-the-know" boasts?

No, it's gullible because the CEO might not exist, and the boast might never been uttered to the OP...

...but the bribing and the situation described (including similar calculations) goes on every day, in every single country, since forever.

So to compare it to conspiracy theory takes a lot of gullibility on the good intentions, clean hands, and lawful operating of businesses, politicians, local officials, and/or the rich. Or maybe a better word would be "naivety".

This is not "Elvis is Alive", "The KKK killed Kennedy" or "PizzaGate".

This is all too common, everyday, corruption.

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

#870

Post by yonran »

closeparen wrote: post #451
rkt88edmo wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Issuing CCW permits isn't a negotiation of city land or development. It is literally a Driver's License for carrying a firearm in public. Should the DMV counter person get to haggle with every person trying to get a driver's license in the name of the public good?

Not against individuals, but against companies? Absolutely. There was a big push to do more "value capture" from the Big Tech commuter shuttle buses in exchange for permission to run on San Francisco streets. It was largely stymied by state law, which SF activists didn't quite have the momentum to change, but it was a big thing in local politics for a while. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco-accused…

The problem with San Francisco’s “value capture” ideas as seen on 48hills.org is that they often want to capture the value of the choice that has positive externalities (e.g. riding a bus down highway 101, or building housing) while not capturing the value of the choice that has negative externaltities (e.g. driving a private vehicle, or underutilizing land during a housing shortage). This blind spot often undermines their self-proclaimed label of “Progressive”.

Ironically, the article also compares buses to a “$250,000 fee San Francisco charges taxi operators for a medallion”. That’s a payout to the previous owner with an initial 5% transfer tax, not a fee, and it was actually a big mistake for the city to have made it a payout rather than “value captured” rent to the city (which could be adjusted), since the city is being sued and is about to go to trial for it (https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CGC18565325).

Post reply on HN