Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case • Hacker News Board

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

#961

Post by scottlocklin » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 8:31 AM UTC

baby wrote: post #954

scottlocklin wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appropriate handle. Some people live in the woods. Some people are head of security for large corporations that run into all manner of physical threats, potential kidnappings or literal geopolitical adversaries (head of security at apple; probably needs to carry a pistol more than the average cop). Some people are former police or some other kind of sheepdog. Some people have crazy exes who might kill them.

> Some people live in the woods They can probably use a very limited type of weapon, none of the crazy weapons you can buy nowadays are necessary > Some people are head of security for large corporations that run into all manner of physical threats, potential kidnappings or literal geopolitical adversaries I'd assume that in these special cases you'd have highly trained individuals who would hold very expensive licen…

> I'd assume that in these special cases....

You know, this situation is what we're talking about here. As for "special training" -you do realize that the special training police receive in firearms is more or less "how to kill people more efficiently," right? Exactly the same training given to civilian holders of concealed carry licenses in the US in states that require them. Seems kind of messed up that a guy with a genuine need can only get what he needs by bribing sherrifs. Looking at his background I don't think he needs much more training.

FWIIW you don't need any training in my state to carry a pistol. In fact you don't even need a license (you will be issued one if you're a non-felon for use in other states). It causes zero problems, my state has the third lowest crime rate in the country. The two lower crime states in the country, we share borders and gun laws with.

>You definitely don't need a gun

You definitely don't get to decide.

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

#962

Post by mlindner » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 9:21 AM UTC

Rebelgecko wrote: post #416

zaroth wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't carry openly in many places, for example, in CA it is illegal to openly carry a handgun. [1] CCW is the only option, and they were holding this guy hostage by not issuing one when it was obviously necessary and appropriate. [1] - https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/faqs/can-i-openly-carry-a-gun-i...

You don't need a CCW to carry on your own property

You do in California. Please don't assume every state has the same laws.

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

#963

Post by mlindner » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 9:21 AM UTC

wl wrote: post #296

mlindner wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> non-essential Having weapons for your security officers is quite essential, especially for a company as high profile as Apple.

That doesn't require a CCW. The guards could easily get exposed firearms permits. They need the CCWs to carry concealed and off duty.

You do in California. Please don't assume every state has the same laws.

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

#964

Post by madengr » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

iaw wrote: post #297

baryphonic wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period. Apple or no Apple, no one in America should be deprived of their Constitutional rights. I'm more concerned that authoritarian states like California can get away with depriving the people of our explicit rights under American law than I am with people paying bribes just to exercise those rights.

California has the most stringent gun laws but also the a lowest gun violence death rate per capita. More people were allowed to pursue the "life" option in the Declaration of Independence. The first item of unalienable rights our forefathers stated all people had. What do you do when two rights directly infringe upon eachother?

What do you have to say about Chicago?

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

#965

Post by jki275 » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:26 PM UTC

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.

Nearly all gun control measures in the US are rooted in racism. Some in Jim Crow, some in other eras -- but most of them were to ensure that the "wrong people"* couldn't protect themselves.

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

#966

Post by maxerickson » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #904

_23sd wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 (whi…

Apple's marketing is that the money is made in California. Designed by Apple in California has long appeared as a feel good on their products that are assembled overseas.

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

#967

Post by microtherion » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #478

dehrmann wrote: post #447

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…

You don't even need tax dollars to build more housing, all you need is not NIMBYism. Unfortunately the Bay Area has that in spades.

Yes, in communities like Cupertino, the cities themselves are downright hostile to housing: https://medium.com/yimby/the-latest-on-vallco-explained-9d37...

When the planning commission of a city likens housing advocacy to "an onslaught of anarchists and YIMBY Neoliberal fascists", rational process has pretty much broken down.

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

#968

Post by uncoder0 » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

frob wrote: post #932

uncoder0 wrote: post #914

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a simple argument to support that stance. Under the 2nd amendment I have the constitutional right to bear arms. If I want to purchase a suppressor to limit hearing damage while firing my weapons I have to pay a $200 tax, send my fingerprints to the FBI and wait 6 months to a year and sometimes longer before I can take possession of my suppressor. There are no similar restrictions on the right to vote or speak…

I still do not see how any of these things are a poll tax. A poll tax is something that inhibits your right to vote by charging you money. For example, requiring a government-issued ID may be construed as a poll tax. Are you arguing that regulations and taxes on guns and accessories are LIKE a poll tax because they inhibit exercising your interpretation of the 2nd amendment? If that is the case, I would argue that it…

Yes, I was arguing that they are like a poll tax. The 24th is a very good point. Is the right to vote even explicitly stated in the constitution? Is that why the 24th was required to prevent poll taxes?

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

#969

Post by disown » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

gvfdabgea wrote: post #863

disown wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

No "computer enthusiast" is enthusiastic about apple. People who used apple products are generally laughed at by computer enthusiasts. Apple products are for non computer enthusiasts. Apple products are for sheep. Computer enthusiastics either build their own computer or buy cheap PCs and throw linux, bsd, etc on there.

> what has this place come to indeed

Indeed. And why a throwaway?

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

#970

Post by hedora » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

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'…

If people paying had no legal incentive to keep their bribe private after the fact, then accepting a bribe would be much riskier than it currently is in the US.

Once it became common knowledge that some officials were extracting bribes, it would be simple to jail them.

After all, if I paid a bribe, and it was legal to pay it, but illegal to receive it, I’d certainly document the payment as well as I could.

After the house was built, you can bet I’d try to recoup my funds, and also figuratively burn the county office to the ground by pursuing every option I could in the press and in court.

I don’t think I’m naive as you think. The officials in this area behave exactly as you describe. The difference in my situation is that, if there was concrete evidence of bribery at the planning office, it would be prosecuted and it would make headlines (just as the bribery case in the article did.)

Local governments that withhold building permits and corruption at PG&E have become so politically contentious that the state government has had to repeatedly intervene.