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

#691

Post by ashtonkem » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:34 AM UTC

This goes to a general theory I've always had; you are most likely to be abused by a local power than a federal one. Generally the most corrupt and abusive people you will meet are going to be someone mediocre who has been handed just a bit too much power. Think HOA's and local bureaucrats, not the state or federal government.

Also, CA should go to shall issue. I'm not a really big gun-guy myself, but I don't see the public benefit to being a may issue state. Especially if it creates little places like this for petty powers to solicit for bribes.

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

#692

Post by AgentOrange1234 » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:36 AM UTC

baryphonic wrote: post #554

iaw wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

26th in homicide according to wikipedia [0] but what is your point? The 'typical' murder involves people that know each other and has a motive. Loose firearm regulations enable mass shootings [1][2] which are more indiscriminate. Everyone has the right to bear arms but what do we do when that infringes on other peoples right to life? I think it's a cogent question. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state…

> Everyone has the right to bear arms but what do we do when that infringes on other peoples right to life? I think it's a cogent question. Clearly the state has laws against murder. And California even has laws that "enhance" sentencing criteria for anyone guilty of using a firearm in the commission of a felony.[1] Also, "mass shootings" are also illegal and are incredibly rare. Also, I have a right to "property"/"p…

I wonder, why is the auto-contents-theft thing so bad in the bay area? I’ve stopped even renting a car when I visit after two friends had separate break-ins on prior trips. Maybe I just got unlucky and these are anecdotes, but geish.

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

#693

Post by ashtonkem » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:37 AM UTC

baby wrote: post #590

floren wrote: post #479

Concealed carry permits in California are the literal definition of privilege, "private law". If you're famous, rich, or the sheriff's friend, you can get one. Otherwise, you can pay a couple hundred bucks to apply and get told no. Rules for thee but not for me.

If you live in a place where you need a concealed carry permit to feel safe, you probably should move to a safer place.

It's not okay to accept corruption for a license you personally don't want. The license should either be not available, or shall issue. Anything else is saying "it's fine if public officials get to extort those citizens, because it's not over something I want".

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

#694

Post by idolaspecus » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:37 AM UTC

I'm curious about the ethics involved in publicly decrying/defending someone who has been indicted but not convicted. I want to be an informed and involved and vigilant citizen but I don't want to be part of a howling mob. It seems like a lot of people in this thread speak as if an indictment equals a conviction. I guess it's not realistic or practical in a forum with so many participants, but I think in these cases we should hold our collective tongues. I donno.

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

#695

Post by ashtonkem » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:42 AM UTC

will4274 wrote: post #681

samatman wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 convict…

> you must prove the innocence of your seized assets to get them back This isn't true. The burden of evidence in civil asset forfeiture is still on the state. The standard is preponderance of doubt, as per the norm in civil court, not the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil forfeiture case still requires a judge or jury to convict your assets. From Wikipedia: > The government simply files a civi…

The problem here isn't the the standard of evidence, it's the unequal access to resources. Lawyers are not cheap, and for many citizens the cost of hiring a lawyer might be greater than the value of the resource in question. And that's even assuming that they win, or that they have faith in the justice system to vindicate them.

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

#696

Post by o-__-o » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:42 AM UTC

yowzadave wrote: post #565

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why give police the power to decide these permits? So that they can make an end run around the 14th amendment, deny all the blacks, deny all the mexicans, deny all the chinese while the state looks the other way, or at least that's what the tacit understanding was ~70yr ago when people were voting for politicians who supported these policies.

Exactly—this is the same reason cops have discretion over who they fine for traffic violations vs. who they let off with a warning: so that the "right" people don't end up having to pay fines.

Having been recently subjected to an invalid traffic violation, it seems discretion means they go after the easy target that will most likely pay (someone caught dead to rights, or looks like they don’t have time or money to fight the case). I watched who the cop pulled over after me and every person was someone who had the means and likelihood to pay the fine rather than fight what was a bogus trap (based on the perceived value of their cars; recent model year, none less than 40k)

I simply went to court and the officer never showed up, but I didn’t see any of the other people pulled over that day in court either (while reasons could explain this away I find it hard to believe of the 7 people I observed none of them paid the fine or took a driving course from the comfort of their own home to be done with it)

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

#697

Post by tesmar2 » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:44 AM UTC

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.

In the spirit of the 2nd amendment, you shouldn’t need a permit. Also happens to close one avenue for corruption.

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

#698

Post by tesmar2 » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:46 AM UTC

simonh wrote: post #651

sokoloff wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One rule for me, another for thee...

Er, no. Different laws at different times. If CC were made illegal, it would be illegal for her too. Or is she actually advocating for different laws for different people?

Yes but you shouldn’t need a permit to get one, in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Having permits just makes 2 classes of people, those with connections to the sheriff and regular Joes.

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

#699

Post by tony101 » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:46 AM UTC

Grakel wrote: post #667

bww wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would retired police have special access to this sort of permit? The entire justification for it is that their dangerous job necessitates special privileges. That justification doesn’t apply to retired people. It may apply to actively employed private security, I don’t know. At least the reasoning makes sense, though.

Good question. I believe if anyone would be qualified for a permit, it would be them. Not that they should receive special access. The current system isn't based on qualification, but on privilege.

"The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the 'qualified law enforcement officer' and the 'qualified retired or separated law enforcement officer'—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions."

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

#700

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:47 AM UTC

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?

Depends on how disposed you are to like the company I guess? When a high level director at Google does something bad, we say on here that Google did something bad. Same at Facebook. I don't know why it should be different for Apple.