Live data from Hacker News

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

morganhilltimes.com

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901
post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd amendment also doesn’t guarantee concealed carry handguns, nukes or RPGs. You can have long guns, stored properly in NYC afaik.

The clear intention of the second amendment is that the citizens have the right to have and carry around anything that would be needed to wage war at the highest level, in order to defend themselves from anyone including the government. Just as the founding fathers had very recently finished doing.

You are clearly correct. All constitutional scholars seem to agree on this. The founding fathers were very concerned about the possibility of future tyranny from government they were crafting. Ensuring that the citizens had guns, and limiting the power of the government were both ways to prevent such tyranny. It's a shame that more people do not understand the mindset of the founding fathers. (Not to imply that they all had a common view on this. There was much disagreement and negotiation.)

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

#902
post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was always under the impression this was less about being cheap, but more about being really idiosyncratic about the way license plates look on cars.

Leasing a new car every 6 months is not cheap. It literally costs 6x as much as leasing the exact same car every 3 years (the industry norm).

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

#903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same boat here in WI. Hell I can buy a gun and walk out of the store in a half hour!

yeah, WI has some pretty insanely lax gun laws. It took me The most bizarre thing to me is that background checks aren't required for private firearm sales.

I feel like there should be a waiting period for your first gun, to reduce the risk of someone in crisis buying one. But once you own a gun, the risk of your second gun seems negligible to me.

But yeah, no background checks on private gun sales is insane. No idea why that's legal anywhere.

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

#904
post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Normally, I'd say that actually cheats the federal government out of tax revenue (for now), but Apple actually is incorporated in California, not Delaware, and California has various corporate taxes.

That said, it doesn't make sense for the global profits of a company like Apple to get taxed in California or Cupertino. The accounting isn't necessarily easy, but it makes more sense to tax where was money was made (which is murky and complicated) than to funnel it all to the HQ; Apple is more than just a spaceship in one city.

This isn't to say Apple isn't doing things to avoid paying taxes, either. My point is that using corporate taxes of a company with global sales to solve local issues doesn't make sense.

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

#905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is a two-party consent state. It's safe to assume a LEO soliciting a bribe would not also consent to having that solicitation recorded. So the only way you are getting that recording is illegally. Depending on how you record them, you could be facing several charges yourself and there's no guarantee that anything will come of it for a variety of reasons. You might even be caught doing it, which could be di…

Two party consent doesn't matter here. The federal courts have consistently upheld that it is one's first ammendment right to record public officials in the performance of their duties. As a member of the public, you are permitted to record your interactions with police. Now, could it still end badly? Sure. If they are willing to break the law for a bribe, then why not take it further if they find out you are recordi…

Which federal court ruled you could record the police in private in a two-party consent jurisdiction?

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

#906
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe He was the chief security officer of the biggest company in the world. He absolutely had many other options. I don't see any Apple apologists here in the comments. Who are you referring to? You do realize that your comment here is exactly what "apologists" means, right?

> He absolutely had many other options. The only legal option I can see is "move out of CA", which probably means get another job. Which, you know, people sometimes do if they feel strongly about the right to carry, but likely wasn't in his set of considered options. > He was the chief security officer of the biggest company in the world. Oh, you're suggesting he use Apple to, uh, "lean on" the sheriff? That seems mu…

> The only legal option I can see is "move out of CA", which probably means get another job. Which, you know, people sometimes do if they feel strongly about the right to carry, but likely wasn't in his set of considered options.

You didn't consider "report it to the DA, state police, or FBI" as an option?

> Oh, you're suggesting he use Apple to, uh, "lean on" the sheriff? That seems much worse. One might even hope that was not one of his possible options, even as CSO...

I absolutely did not read this in the GP's post. Whether it is what he meant or not, it's an ungenerous take. A more generous take is that with the resources available to him, reporting a bribe solicitation to the appropriate authorities is much less risky than it would be for (say) a random citizen of San Jose.

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

#907
post #886
post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Apple doesn't exactly have a history of "paying taxes".

Sure it does -- Apple's effective worldwide tax rate is ~25%. Like every US multinational, Apple structure themselves to optimize their tax burden, but it's not like they "have a history of not paying taxes".

you're on a tear posting this at face value

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

#908
post #864
post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I think some of that has to do with the everreal presence of government in today's day and age. In the wild west, well it was the wild west. Other than the long arm of the law there was very little government or regulation, people did not feel the need that the founding fathers did. In all reality they were pretty free.

Contrast that with today and we have moved more and more issues to the federal level, we have pretty much abandoned the republic for an empire and now we are pushing social issues and regulation to a federal level. This does not end well, it never has.

When we has 50 strong independent governments that had more to do with peoples day to day lives and the federal government just stepped into the states business or rights issues, people had 50 shots at finding a representative government. Not so today, as more and more, the states (governmentally) look like cookie cutters of one another. I think this has set the "all or nothing", "I am not giving one inch" mentality that pervades discussion today, on almost every subject and it is coming from both sides. At a certain point, one side or the other is going to believe they need to stand up to federal government, because they no longer have a representative government and the ones that have guns tend to be of the mentality that those chickens are coming home to roost for their side.

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

#909
post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, this is taking actions of a group, and some within it, and applying it to all the individuals. That your excuse for doing so is that "they are police" or "they are in charge" isn't all that convincing. Last time I checked, bigotry was bad in general, not just when applied to those without power.

> Last time I checked, bigotry was bad in general, not just when applied to those without power. You're invoking "it's bigotry!" as a reason why we shouldn't do this. Why do you think bigotry is bad? Is it bad intrinsically (aka "bigotry is bad" is an axiom), or is it bad because of its effects? If it's the latter, does the reasoning apply when applied to organizations with voluntary membership? Furthermore, I don't…

> Why do you think bigotry is bad?

Depending no the definition you use, either because it's part of the definition in that it's talking about negative effects, or because it's based on intolerance and unwillingness to consider other people's beliefs at all. Are you actually asking why intolerance of all other points of view is bad? Or are you asking why something defined as bad is bad, which is an odd semantic discussion to have? If this is trolling to get me to define a basic portion of my argument, it's a particularly absurd attempt, since it's literally covered by the dictionary.

> If it's the latter, does the reasoning apply when applied to organizations with voluntary membership?

> Furthermore, I don't see why it's bad to hate on an organization and/or its members based on the conduct of its other members. Let's say Acme, Inc is known for sales reps with high pressure sales tactics. Is it bad then, if I ignore a cold call from an Acme sales rep on that basis?

Because you are taking the actions of some members and applying it to the whole. Should we hate all Democrats and/or all Republicans because some of them act in horrible ways that undermine our government? There are definitely people on each side that would like it if you did.

Basically, I see this as coming down to the purpose of the organization, why people are members of the organization, and how many of them exhibit the behavior in question. If we're talking about white supremacists, people join because of that belief, that belief itself is problematic, and we can safely assume all members (except for special circumstances or those there because they have little choice) have those beliefs and exhibit and support that behavior.

Contrast that with police agencies. Whatever the behavior of the portion of officers that behave in a way you we all find abhorrent, the purpose of the organization is not to suppress or kill minorities, it's to keep public order, enforce the law, and keep people safe. I think most people join because they think it's a noble profession and want to serve their community (whether or not that goes to their head later). I don't think you can make an assumption about any specific police officer's behavior with regard to the negative behavior we've seen, because many police officers do not agree with it either.

That is a clear difference in many attributes that defines why I would be willing to make assumptions about an avowed member of a white supremacist group with regard to behavior about race, but I would not be willing to make assumptions about any single police officer with regard to behavior regarding treatment of minorities.

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

#910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived there for 35 years. Her Majesty Laurie only bestows a few CCWs to a handful of business people and her buddies. People can apply for CCWs all they want, but she'll never issue them willingly. She's a bureaucrat and a crook keeping the populace defenseless and maintaining LE job security. https://imgur.com/anZTMPx

Imagining getting indicted for having to bribe a local official to exercise an essential right, specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, and held up repeatedly in the courts (Hello DC v. Heller). It's a situation where there are two classes, the haves and have nots. If you aren't politically connected in NJ, NY, CA, etc - good luck. If you exercise these rights, you will end up in a prison cell. Even places like PA…

That's pretty much it. They arrested the hooker instead of the pimp.
Post reply on HN