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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by caf »

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 )

It is likewise illegal for Australian citizens, residents or corporations (with the same sort of "Facilitation Payment" carve-outs mentioned elsethread):

https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-09/factsheet-2-the-f...

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

#672

Post by anonfornoreason »

ip26 wrote: post #648
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.

Since when was CCW a Constitutional right? You don't need one to carry.

You definitely need a ccw to open carry a loaded firearm in many jurisdictions

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

#673

Post by o-__-o »

zepto wrote: post #499
throwawaygh wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. GP is appalled at commenters breaking for Apple, and I'm just pointing out that their response is best understood as a projection of themselves into Apple's shoes. And in that case the response is reasonable. But of course the unreasonable thing those commenters need to realize is that Apple is insanely powerful and insanely powerful institutions putting up with corruption…

Is it ‘Apple’ or is it the head of security though?

It’s the head of apple security. That is Apple. Apple would do well to swiftly terminate their relationship and get in front with PR statements of their own and further acts to minimize blowback. Then, when the head of security has his day in court, Apple will be vindicated. Then, and only then, is it the head of security. Until that point it’s entirely Apple (and why companies make such a big deal about anti-bribery training)

FWIW, it would be just as bad of a look if instead the head of security’s wife was engaged in this scheme at her own workplace. And Apple would be 100% correct to still terminate their relationship for fear of bad press

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

#674

Post by willjr10 »

triceratops wrote: post #205
jbuzbee wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've gone through various "International Training" sessions at my company and one of the things they teach is that if a foreign official says something like, "hmmm... your papers are invalid, but I can help you out for $100" or similar, you should pay and immediately report (and expense) it on return. I know one coworker who went through this traveling through a small country.

Your company trained you to pay bribes? That sounds...unusual, and not at all lawful (according to US law, if you are based in the US).

My company training also states that in situations where you are in possible danger, you should pay the bribe and then document and report it (with the company). For instance, you and a co-worker is in a car accident, you are fine, but your co-worker has a broken leg, you go with your co-worker to the hospital, upon arriving at the hospital you are told the doctor has gone home for the day, but for the right price, someone might be able to get him/her back. There is a "Safe Harbor" exception in these cases, however you must document and report.

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

#675

Post by andrewseanryan »

Ice_cream_suit wrote: post #472
Alex3917 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.: htt…

A CEO I know (billion dollar revenues, multinational corporation ) tells me that: 1.The tricky bit is knowing the right amount of the bribe to pay. Pay a Senator or a member of the House too little and you have made a powerful enemy. Pay too much and they figure that they have a sucker that they can keep milking. And of course, you have also wasted a couple of extra million that could have been directed to another Se…

This sounds like some dialogue from a Scorsese film...

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

#677

Post by JackFr »

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 )

It’s funny - I did give that some thought - and then concluded (VERY INCORRECTLY I ADD), well he worked for one of the BIG oil companies — more likely than not an American.

Upon giving it a little more thought it turns out that only 2 of the top 10 oil companies are American. So, yeah, my bad.

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

#678

Post by carapace »

renewiltord wrote: post #172
codazoda wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear it's really difficult to get a CCW in CA unless you are rich or famous. I'm wondering if that's true?

In counties like this, this is the case. Well-meaning citizens say "Well, we trust the police so if we just let them use their discretion everything will be all right". That has the predictable effect it has everywhere in the world which is that the police then choose to monetize that discretion. Similar things happen in the planning department and public works department in San Francisco. Supervisors will receive ha…

Yup

> The Planning Department, Department of Public Health, and the City Administrator's Office have all been hit with subpoenas stemming from the sprawling federal investigation into corruption in San Francisco government.

> ...

> The City Attorney's Office's simultaneous investigation has already revealed a relationship between former Public Works director Mohammed Nuru and local entrepreneur Nick Bovis, in which Bovis appears to have taken donations from his charity (Lefty O'Doul's Foundation for Kids), given by city contractors, and funneled them to cover DPW holiday parties. Now it looks like the feds are following up on this pattern and trying to see if there are more examples of city vendors possibly disguising bribes that benefited city employees as charitable gifts.

https://sfist.com/2020/07/15/ongoing-fbi-corruption-probe-hi...

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

#679

Post by Reelin »

giantg2 wrote: post #595
jkaplowitz wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Using a die roll would be arbitrary and capricious (and thus I assume illegal), but would it violate equal protection specifically? I suspect not.

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

#680

Post by scurvy »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #574
scurvy wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that’s the whole point of a CCW permit. If you’re at risk you should be allowed to have one, and yet she works to make that impossible for all but the powerful and connected. It’s fine that she has one but it’s not fine that she doesn’t let regular Californians go through the same application process without money or connections.

My point was to show that she had a legitimate need, then let the permit lapse when she no longer had a need. She didn't have one for an abuse of power.

I wasn't debating the merits of the CA shall issue policy.

In other words, don't pick a fight where there isn't one.

Post reply on HN