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

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by giantg2 »

tshaddox wrote: post #241
giantg2 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. I kind of hate that reckless driving law since it is somewhat subjective. Each state should have case law about it and allow you your due process rights to challenge it too. But yeah, I can see in the context of the test that it could be a problem. If you record the test, then you should be able to challenge it (sad it sometimes comes to that). I'm in a similar situation, actually. I had a trooper lie in cou…

It would be extremely difficult to define all driving rules objectively even if you had extremely high resolution data of the car and its surroundings. Approximately as difficult as programming a fully autonomous car, I reckon.

Not really. The driving laws except for recklessness are very well defined.

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

#332

Post by progman32 »

Swizec wrote: post #174
wolco2 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably one of the craziest things I've heard. Never commit a crime to look a certain way because it won't look that way tomorrow. The police could be trapping you. If not they now have dirt on you. How in the world can you explain that to a judge if it came to that?

When a person with a gun says do something, you do it. Especially if said person is an LEO in a country famous for above-the-law LEOs. Principles are easy to have from the safety of a keyboard. How many of us would keep them in a real world situation?

As there's no indication in the article that Moyer or his team were threatened with violence, I'm reading and responding to your post as a theory ("People's ethics are often overridden under the weight of authority.") vs advice for the future ("When a person with a gun says do something, you should do it"). Let me know if I'm mistaken.

Your question is difficult to answer, but I ask in return: Is a general propensity to engage in an act sufficient to excuse it?

I will concede that "every person has their price". At some point we cross the line from "asking for a bribe" to "engaging in extortion" to "direct threats of violence".

Moyer ran the ethics and business conduct programs. Is there an expectation that someone in that position does have a durable set of principles, and a price higher than a CCW permit?

The appropriate consequences for the involved parties are, of course, along completely different ethical lines.

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

#333

Post by Spooky23 »

Swizec wrote: post #174
wolco2 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably one of the craziest things I've heard. Never commit a crime to look a certain way because it won't look that way tomorrow. The police could be trapping you. If not they now have dirt on you. How in the world can you explain that to a judge if it came to that?

When a person with a gun says do something, you do it. Especially if said person is an LEO in a country famous for above-the-law LEOs. Principles are easy to have from the safety of a keyboard. How many of us would keep them in a real world situation?

That’s a little dramatic.

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

#334

Post by [deleted] »

baryphonic wrote: post #249
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. 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.

[deleted]

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

#335

Post by makomk »

wolco2 wrote: post #189
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).

Why give police the power to decide these permits? Power corrupts

Usual think of the children stuff. Basically, someone who shouldn't have a permit could hypothetically get one and then go on a killing spree, so we need to give police and sheriffs full powers to deny them. If I remember rightly, one of the main things the American gun control movement has been campaigning for is the removal of shall-issue policies which require police and sheriffs to issue permits like these unless they have a specific legally-defined reason not to, and replacing them with the kind of may-issue policies that allow arbitrary denials and this sort of corruption - and they're quite happy to point at dead kids and accuse anyone who gets in their way of supporting child murder to achieve this.

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

#336

Post by samatman »

ineedasername wrote: post #311
SrslyJosh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it isn't. You are misinformed about the tawdry reality of asset seizure in the United States.

If the police take assets from you, you might think you get them back unless you're convicted of a crime. Far from it: you must prove the innocence of your seized assets to get them back, and good luck with that.

That this exists at all is a scandal and a moral hazard. Seizure should be strictly temporary until a conviction is obtained, and the burden of proof that assets are illegally obtained should be on the state, rather than the opposite, and the value of all seized goods should go into a Federal general fund, rather than retained by the local jurisdiction.

Until this is the case, and good luck with that reform, it is simply state-sanctioned theft. Nothing else.

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

#337

Post by kennywinker »

closeparen wrote: post #254
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.

It looks like the iPads were for the department, not the guy's personal use. It's a little bit dubious given that it's the same agency asking for and receiving the benefit, but money is fungible. Suppose the Sheriff had insisted on iPads for some other department, like the schools. Governments do stuff like this all the time. In fact constituents get mad when they don't . The Planning Commission is considered derelic…

It's almost like the system of permits for concessions is actually a corrupting force in cities! In my city many development projects went ahead because of various promises (low income housing, cultural venues, etc) and the developer didn't follow through in any meaningful way - i.e. a theater was built, no shows ever took place there. Or low income housing was transitioned to market rate housing within 5 years.

But at least these things happened in public, through a semi-transparent process of development permits with public consultations. The process is semi-fixed, the incentives are off, but it's not a straight up bribe behind closed doors.

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

#338

Post by Rapzid »

t-writescode wrote: post #239
wolco2 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably one of the craziest things I've heard. Never commit a crime to look a certain way because it won't look that way tomorrow. The police could be trapping you. If not they now have dirt on you. How in the world can you explain that to a judge if it came to that?

Honestly, this sounds like it's coming from someone that lives in a country where bribes aren't commonplace. It's good that you and I both live in countries like that; but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common. From the other comments in this thread, it's suggesting that the CCW permit process in California is very bad and broken and these bribes have been an illegal method of actuall…

I wouldn't call it paying a bribe so much as paying a ransom. It does not surprise me at all that this is happening given how much authority the Sherrif's have over CCW and how few they give out.

Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.

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

#339

Post by jauer »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #321
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.

Reminds me of the incidents with people working in security for other tech companies, e.g., Uber^1 and Ebay^2. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227437 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23537357

This was likely for Tim Cook's personal security detail.

Basically every high net worth or highly visible tech CEO has a PSD (really high end folks have a counter-kidnap team on standby).

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

#340

Post by sjg007 »

throw0101a wrote: post #264
sandworm101 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the local level? It is commonplace. Look into how many local police agencies have vehicles or other equipment donated by local citizens. Look at where an elected sherrif gets his campaign funding. There is very little oversight at the local level.

> Look at where an elected sherrif gets his campaign funding. Reminder that in many US jurisdictions judges are also elected and may need campaign funding.

Right but you are limited to the donations you can make. That excludes super pacs though.
Post reply on HN