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

591–600 of 1001 posts

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

#591

Post by giantg2 »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #578
giantg2 wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CCW is the wrong kind of permit for armed employment. There's a different kind for that. The CCWs would only benefit the individuals, not the company.

Maybe the news article was being informal, or maybe they specifically wanted to carry concealed and not open. It still seems like whatever was being requested was on behalf of the security team he was overseeing as his primary job duty at Apple.

It's possible the journalist was wrong, but I believe the BSIS issues the professional license, not the sherriff. Open or concealed doesn't matter when it's for armed employment - the license from BSIS is what's needed. So it seems this was for personal CCW.

Edit: Never mind. CA is super stupid and requires a state license to carry a firearm for employment but would then also require a license from the sheriff to conceal it.

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

#592

Post by blueflame7 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #561
blueflame7 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure this guy was just hired

His LinkedIn has him working at Apple for 14 years and in his current role for at least 2. What information source did you use to come to the conclusion that he was just hired?

I stand corrected. I confused Apple and Twitter when recalling this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/nov/17/twitter-h...

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

#593

Post by baby »

zionic wrote: post #425
rietta wrote: post #362

Unbelievable capricious enforcement of a may issue permitting regime, asking for and receiving bribes! For those who don't know, in many other States a carry permit must be issued by the issuing authority unless the applicant is disqualified for reasons stated in the law. The irony is these Apple employees previously could have sought and obtained certain out of state licenses by passing the tests and qualifications.…

It’s insane that shall-issue is not the defacto standard. If you meet the requirements (not a felon etc) for exercising what is unarguably a constitutional right your participation in said right should not be at the gov’s leisure.

You are putting everyone else in danger when you start carrying weapons, as an ex-resident of the bay I'm really happy that the rules are against weapons in general

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

#594

Post by 15155 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #14
cbozeman wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason there are needs for concealed carry every single place on Earth. You don't want bad actors to know who is - and who isn't - armed.

I'll offer a counter-example to your claim that CCW is needed every single place on earth: my home. I don't have a gun. If someone comes in to my home with a gun, even if they are a "good guy", the odds of my dying by gunshot would instantly go up by a large multiple. In comparison, the odds that I'm going to suffer a home invasion, that I would have been shot without the friendly gun owner, and that person successfu…

You are free to defend yourself (or not!) however you please!

Ultimately - that's okay, so long as my rights and the safety of my family aren't subject to another's particular distaste for self-preservation.

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

#595

Post by giantg2 »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #585
giantg2 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the criteria isn't codified, then how can it be equally applied?

Courts are very familiar with adjudicating such ambiguity and have been throughout history. They simply have to avoid discriminating in ways that violate the law, but other forms of subjectivity. As a stupid but illustrative hypothetical example, if the official decides each morning whether he will approve all CCW applications he sees that day or none of them based on a die roll before leaving home, and then unilater…

They have to provide legal reasoning. Simply using an arbitrary die roll would not be lawful, unless the legislature specified it.

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

#596

Post by briandear »

scurvy wrote: post #552
nradov wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nothing new. Senator Dianne Feinstein got a permit to carry a concealed handgun in San Francisco. There has always been one set of rules for the powerful and another set for the rest of us.

She had one because the anarcho hippie terrorist groups of SF targeted her and shot up her home several times. When the group was arrested/disbanded, she let her permit lapse. While I agree it sucks that some rich and powerful people seem to live by a different set of rules, it's not like she had a permit just for kicks.

However, a person living in a dangerous neighborhood has just as much right to protection as an elected official. And the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have a qualifier “if you can prove you need it.”

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

#597

Post by moftz »

zaroth wrote: post #349
temp667 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and it's clearly permitted to pay in that case because being able to travel involves routine govt action. I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.

> routine govt action Like issuing a concealed-carry permit to a non-felon ex-Navy corporate executive. OP describes a ransom, not a bribe. Charge the govt official who demanded the ransom, not the citizen entrapped in the scheme.

Except most of these guys either paid the bribe or had it ready to go until they heard sirens. These guys could have easily reported the solicitation but instead they participated in it. This isn't the case where a cop is threatening to throw you in jail or plant drugs on you unless you pay up right now, this is a state permit process. No one had their life or freedom directly threatened over not having more CCW permits for their security team.

The sheriff deputies fucked up. The CCW applicants fucked up. Everyone got caught and everyone is going to suffer the consequences.

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

#598

Post by giantg2 »

rkt88edmo wrote: post #587
giantg2 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concealed or exposed, you need a BSIS license as an armed guard (executive protection) in CA.

No one is debating that, and the BSIS standards are absurdly low and they are available to everyone. There is no taint in the process for BSIS issuance that has been raised.

And this article isn't about bribing for BSIS licenses, it's about bribing for CCWs. So if the BSIS license is the one needed for professional carry, the CCW is moot from the company's perspective.

Edit: Never mind. CA is super stupid.

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

#599

Post by FireBeyond »

jefftk wrote: post #576
JackFr wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope there standard was to not do it, because it is a US crime for any US national, citizen or resident as employee, officer or agent of a US corporation to bribe or otherwise corrupt a foreign official. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac...

I think you're assuming your parent is an American? (Looks like they're Australian: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25194634 )

A bit of both. I live in the US now, but grew up in Australia (and born in Scotland, so I have quite the passport collection at this point).

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

#600

Post by Spooky23 »

tengbretson wrote: post #494
Spooky23 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is pretty obvious. When some scumbag like a pimp or similar without a conviction goes for a permit, you end up in a situation where the police are enabling certain types of undesirable behavior. IMO, discretion for this sort of thing should be with a judge, not a cop.

Denying permits may not be as effective at thwarting career criminals as you may think.

Perhaps, but providing them with CCWs will be effective at thwarting career police chiefs.
Post reply on HN