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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by Zhenya »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #646
Zhenya wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly? IMHO, sf would be a lot safer if the criminals would have at least the concept that someone could respond to their violence with equal violence. Today, aside from the slim chance of being caught by an unengaged police force, the cost is zero.

Are... you seriously suggesting that if it was easier to get guns there might be less violent crime?

Guns are easy to get for criminals, in SF they are hard to get for law abiding citizens.

So yes, if people who follow the law can equalize force with criminals, the criminals would consider more careful applying their force indiscriminately.

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

#942

Post by jsjohnst »

QuercusMax wrote: post #900
bonestamp2 wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I don't think it lets him park there, but it's hard to write a ticket without a plate number. 2) Agreed. This story makes no sense, although there is a picture of his car in a handicapped spot, so maybe he just did it once? 3) Lots of brilliant and successful people are assholes. Most people admire the first two qualities and not the third.

I thought the handicapped spot story and the every-six-months-new-car-for-no-plates story were separate. Steve didn't want a license plate on his car because he thought it messed up the aesthetics. He was also a jerk and parked in the handicapped spot because he could.

They’ve always been separate stories to me too and I’ve heard the same “aesthetics” point a bunch too (which doesn’t make it “true”, but sounds plausible anyway).

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

#943

Post by randallsquared »

nl wrote: post #940
randallsquared wrote: post #934

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think both of your responses can be cleared up by noting that @nl was responding to, and quoted: > the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe In this context, "options" mean "options to fulfill the CCW licensing goal". Reporting it to the DA, state police, the FBI, or anyone else wouldn't further the CCW licensing goal (tho…

> In this context, "options" mean "options to fulfill the CCW licensing goal". I think that is artificially closing the options. Firstly, and most obviously - he could report the illegal activity by the sheriff and wait. Secondly, he could sue, and ask the court order the licenses be granted immediately if there was a time-critical need. There's probably other options available for relief too, and I'm pretty sure the…

> I think that is artificially closing the options.

Ah. I took the quote to be the prompt for your reply, as mentioned above.

> Secondly, he could sue, and ask the court order the licenses be granted immediately if there was a time-critical need. There's probably other options available for relief too, and I'm pretty sure the Apple legal department could think of them!

In spite of Moyer being CSO for Apple, I hadn't realized that Apple Corporation was paying the bribe!

You are right that with the company directly involved, there are more options, and it was my misreading/skimming of the article which led me to the wrong conclusions, there.

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

#944

Post by SwimSwimHungry »

baby wrote: post #933
uncoder0 wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expand on this... there are virtually zero intentional homicides at gun ranges and gun shows where hundreds of weapons are present. Also all gun laws are discriminatory toward the poor and minorities disproportionately.

Yet mass shootings and gun violence only seem to occur overwhelmingly in countries where there is less friction to buy weapons (like the US).

That depends on what you define as a "mass shooting". Some of the statistics turn out to be playing a game of sleight of hand, defining events that really shouldn't be classified as a mass shooting as a mass shooting. Most of that talk is to get the peanut gallery up in a tizzy about a problem that is far less dire than suggested.

Here's a link to some data being combed from 2019.

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/cmzzlc/25...

Also, there are instances where suicides are being tagged as mass shootings as well.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-we-prevent-mass-sho...

Frankly, I think we could stand to increase education around the issue of guns, mental health, and personal responsibility, rather than trying to reflexively legislate away access to firearms, which primarily affects law abiding citizens and not criminals.

Just some food for thought.

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

#945

Post by randallsquared »

nl wrote: post #936
randallsquared wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. How could that possibly be the only option? Sue the sheriff's department is an obvious one, as is contact the FBI. > 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 What? No of course not. Off the top of my head:…

As mentioned in another subthread, I mis-skimmed the article and thought it was about his own personal CCW licensing, rather than being something Apple was actively involved in.

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

#946

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

ashtonkem wrote: post #903
packetlost wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I understand what you're getting it, typically your first gun isn't when the crisis occurs. Especially here unfortunately. Plus a lot of gun culture is tied to hunting culture.

I actually gave a gun to the police once cause I didn't want a rifle anymore (it was just a cheap mosin) and I could tell the cop was holding back a grin of disbelief the entire time. $5 bucks says it's in his gun locker right now at home.

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

#947

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

packetlost wrote: post #922
ashtonkem wrote: post #903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IMO there should be a mandatory waiting period of 24-48 hours for any firearm, but you should be able to start the process over the phone/online etc. Alternatively, require training + passing an exam similar to getting a drivers license for owning anything except a manual long-barrel rifle or shotgun. Semi-auto firearms especially should require licensing/training IMO. Restrictions on magazine size or appearance ("as…

Generally people who are going to make rash decisions and plan them out acquire firearms in any way their allowed. If it means waiting a day, they will do it. Just because some arbitrary law exists doesn't mean it'll delay or prevent the inevitable. With suicidal and depressive types as well. They aren't like homer simpson purchasing a firearm thinking "aww, I'm suicidal now!" They're pretty much at the breaking point if that happens and literally nothing short of imprisonment can stop them.

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

#948

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

packetlost wrote: post #938
ashtonkem wrote: post #929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically speaking waiting periods are about reducing the risk of someone in a crisis purchasing a firearm and immediately using it for harm, usually either suicide or domestic violence. From a public health perspective there is very little increase in danger for someone buying a second gun, especially of the same type. All of the risk is for their first firearm. IIRC licensing programs for handguns typically have sh…

> Typically speaking waiting periods are about reducing the risk of someone in a crisis purchasing a firearm and immediately using it for harm, usually either suicide or domestic violence. From a public health perspective there is very little increase in danger for someone buying a second gun, especially of the same type. All of the risk is for their first firearm. This assumes that people don't get rid of firearms o…

You know, I wanted to prove you wrong about the car licensing vs gun licensing thing by comparing deaths and honestly I proved myself wrong basically. For as little as you deal with a firearm on a day to day basis as opposed to a vehicle, their death tolls per year are very similar. The simple fact that we drive 2 ton + vehicles everyday and not kill eachother constantly is a testament to either A. constant use and exposure aids in safety B. gun safety just isn't a thing C. guns are mostly used for suicides and crime

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

#949

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

baby wrote: post #925
ashtonkem wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reasonable people can disagree about guns and CCW, but you’re crossing the line to just insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

How? I truly do not go to states where open carry is a thing, for example. Guns are a controversial topic and I'm not the only one who would rather see them banned than legally purchasable.

I worked as a teller in a rural area and a dude just walked in open carrying a pistol. It was super weird but the dude had that small town naivety.

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

#950

Post by baby »

ashtonkem wrote: post #930
baby wrote: post #925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? I truly do not go to states where open carry is a thing, for example. Guns are a controversial topic and I'm not the only one who would rather see them banned than legally purchasable.

That's a reasonable policy position to take. "You shouldn't live anywhere where you think CCW is a good idea" is not a policy position; you're just attacking someone else for either where they live or how they feel about their personal safety. Neither of those are terribly polite, and both are counterproductive towards your stated policy preferences. Nobody likes being looked down on.

I disagree, by being pro-guns you make everybody's lives less safe around you IMO.
Post reply on HN