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

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311

Post by ineedasername »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #96
yalogin wrote: post #78

Wow the sheriff’s office is asking for bribes openly like this? I am really surprised. I wonder how common bribes are at that level of the government.

Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals.

Calling it theft is a very far stretch. I know there are stories of police abusing this & taking cash of people in random traffic stops: That's theft. But a huge portion of asset seizures are forfeits from drug crimes. The DEA along takes about $500 million a year in this way, and state, country & municipal departments take even more.

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

#312

Post by kennywinker »

nl wrote: post #251
giantg2 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These permits in CA are may-issue, not shall-issue. The sheriff can deny for any reason (of course they aren't supposed to ask for a bribe).

Soliciting bribes is explicitly against the law, and that has nothing to do with "may" vs "shall" issue.

Deniability. i.e. the sheriff can say the permit wasn’t issued because its at their discretion, not because someone didn’t pay a bribe. That said, even with a "shall" situation there are hoops to jump thru that can be used to set this same kinda situation up.

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

#313

Post by samatman »

tshaddox wrote: post #203
giantg2 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, that's also shall-issue in most states. If you meet the statutory requirements (passing the test, age, etc), then they must issue the license.

But the test is necessarily subjective. The instructor can determine, for instance, whether the applicant drove recklessly during the exam.

The part of the test administered by the state is objective, in all three states in which I've obtained a license.

The part which is subjective is deputized to instructors, and one can shop around for a willing one.

The moral hazard you're alluding to is completely absent.

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

#314

Post by bsder »

giantg2 wrote: post #107
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.

Why the company? Seems like it was just this individual.

> Why the company?

Because you don't just randomly cough up a couple hundred anything from a company like Apple without it appearing on the books somewhere.

If it didn't appear on the books anywhere, then it sounds like Apple gave this department a quite significant "petty cash" fund and used this guy and department to do unsavory things so that the higher-ups can have plausible deniability.

Yeah, the company needs to get hammered, too.

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

#315

Post by beervirus »

tshaddox wrote: post #163
beervirus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a correlation because people who live in dangerous places tend to carry guns. But that's not causation--there's no reason to suspect that carrying a gun increases my chances of being killed by a gun.

Huh? Surely carrying a gun somewhere where there are no other guns immensely increased the chance that you’ll be killed by a gun, since the number of guns in the vicinity went from zero to one.

Carrying a gun makes it more likely that I’ll shoot myself?

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

#316

Post by ineedasername »

gruez wrote: post #226
geofft wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Google results for 'civil asset forfeture theft': https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-... https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-mor... In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled.

>In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled. But that's a weaker claim than the original, which argued 'Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals', which I interpret to mean all thefts, rather than just burglary (a subset of '"real" criminals'). The former seems to be around 12B a year,…

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

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

#317

Post by Alex3917 »

throwawaygh wrote: post #120
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.

A private citizen of limited means paying a bribe is somehow reasonable because there's a huge power imbalance. Refusing to pay a bribe is also a refusal to participate in a racket. Local police can be extremely petty and extremely violent [1]. If a police officer told me he'd let me off for a bribe, I would probably pay it. I wouldn't be paying to get what I want. Rather, I would be paying to avoid the appearance th…

> A high-level exec at one of the world's most powerful companies paying off a local LEO for a permit instead of, IDK, contacting the State or the Feds, is beyond inexplicable.

The problem is that, at least in many jurisdictions, gun permits basically only exist as a means for police to solicit bribes. There's literally an entire industry of people whose job is bribing police departments to get gun permits. C.f.: https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+concealed+carry+bribes

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

#318

Post by btilly »

giantg2 wrote: post #266
kec wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is a may issue state, the sheriff's office can decline to issue a permit for any reason. Soliciting the bribe is illegal for other reasons, but failing to issue the permit is not a rights violation under California law.

...any legal reason... Actually, denying the permit via an illegal action (requesting a bribe) is not a lawful denial and would result in the violation of your equal protection rights.

They do not have to provide the reason. Does it matter if the real reason is illegal?

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

#319

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

mike_d wrote: post #284
systemvoltage wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is unconstitutional about prosecuting people of crimes that they commit by bribing officials? I’m not following your logic.

Bay Area Sheriffs withhold a constitutional right in the issuance of permits, which results in something of value being created that they can hold for political or financial favor. Even if you disagree with concealed carry, 2/3 of the counties in CA will issue you a permit no problem that allows you to carry statewide. There is no reasonable argument for not issuing permits here.

I totally agree with you, but I think the clear implication of baryphonic's comment is that the State of CA was being "authoritarian" here by denying the permit, as opposed to the sheriffs dept. Which, I'd point out, doesn't make much sense given that it is in fact the State of California which is bringing the charges against these people in the sheriffs dept for demanding bribes in exchange for a constitutionally protected government service.

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

#320

Post by kube-system »

pageandrew wrote: post #291
kube-system wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States still have their own laws regarding legal procedure and speech rights, and they do vary by state. Those overarching rights are still a patchwork between states. Many states give protections that go beyond the requirements in the US Constitution -- this is completely legal and not uncommon. The Bill of Rights mainly defines which laws are illegal -- it does not prescribe what is legal. This is currently what is…

> the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Seems like denying some people the right to bear arms would pretty plainly constitute an infringement, no?

SCOTUS has not ruled on this issue, so it is technically undetermined. SCOTUS has ruled in other cases that there are some situations where people can be denied those rights legally, so determining the outcome is not as simple as reading the text. SCOTUS generally evaluates the law in a broader context than just the written text.
Post reply on HN