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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by selectodude »

prepend wrote: post #490
paxys wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve Jobs - We pay our taxes Apple's accounting team - Well actually..

I’m sure you’re joking, but I think Jobs was referring to property taxes. I’m not sure how much other tax they could contribute to a local town (sales tax is probably much less than the property tax). Looks like the property at 1 Infinite Loop was assessed at $330M last year, https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/online-services/proper...

And the property at 1 Apple Park was assessed at $823 million. 1 Apple Park alone is $11m/yr in property tax.

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

#882

Post by mikece »

California is in the minority of states that have a "may issue" law for concealed carry as opposed to "must issue" where the license must be issued if they applicant has met all of the prerequisites. Given the politics of the State it's unlikely that the California Assembly will change their CCW law to "must issue" but it would have made this case of requesting and paying a bribe impossible.

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

#884

Post by neilc »

_23sd wrote: post #862
dehrmann wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of the joke was probably the Cupertino city council being jealous of Google providing free wifi for Mountain View. Jobs has a good point about "paying taxes." In the last few years, a lot of people in the Bay Area outside tech are saying things like "why doesn't tech do more to build more housing." They pay taxes, and tech workers living in the cities are paying income and property taxes. The communities should…

"We pay our taxes" sounds a bit disingenuous from a company that is famous for aggressively offshoring its profits to avoid paying US and California taxes, the latter of which would directly contribute to local housing programs.

Apple's effective worldwide tax rate is ~25%, which is actually slightly higher than other US multinationals. That is also not counting taxes on income/capital gains paid by California employees, which are obviously pretty sizable.

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

#885

Post by austincheney »

kls wrote: post #774
austincheney wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link specifically calls out New York City. I could not find anything related to concealed carry permits and bribery for Texas. This indicates a poor implementation of law/regulation.

This is because Texas is a shall issue state where generally, you apply, meet the specified requirements, get a background check, pay your fees and the state will issues you a permit. If you pass all the checks you get the permit, no other considerations are made. New York is a may issue state which generally/usually means a local law enforcement official will make a judgment call. Some have a blanken no issue policy…

That sounds highly prejudicial. The Texas approach sounds far more sane and equitable.

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

#886

Post by neilc »

MH15 wrote: post #878
dehrmann wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of the joke was probably the Cupertino city council being jealous of Google providing free wifi for Mountain View. Jobs has a good point about "paying taxes." In the last few years, a lot of people in the Bay Area outside tech are saying things like "why doesn't tech do more to build more housing." They pay taxes, and tech workers living in the cities are paying income and property taxes. The communities should…

But Apple doesn't exactly have a history of "paying taxes".

Sure it does -- Apple's effective worldwide tax rate is ~25%. Like every US multinational, Apple structure themselves to optimize their tax burden, but it's not like they "have a history of not paying taxes".

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

#887

Post by bonestamp2 »

jcranmer wrote: post #876
hobs wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After working there for a bit the most amazing story I heard is that he would lease a new car every six months so that he wouldnt need to get a plate put on it so he could park in the handicap spot without getting ticketed.

Three questions: 1) How does not having a plate let you park in the handicapped space? The regulation is probably written such that you are required to have the handicapped plate or placard, and displaying no plate would be probable cause here. 2) Why not just have Apple reserve a parking space for the CEO or Steve Jobs outright? There's no regulations against reserving parking spaces in such a manner that I'm aware…

1) I don't think it lets him park there, but it's hard to write a ticket without a plate number.

2) Agreed. This story makes no sense, although there is a picture of his car in a handicapped spot, so maybe he just did it once?

3) Lots of brilliant and successful people are assholes. Most people admire the first two qualities and not the third.

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

#888

Post by anonuser123456 »

fastball wrote: post #478
dehrmann wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of the joke was probably the Cupertino city council being jealous of Google providing free wifi for Mountain View. Jobs has a good point about "paying taxes." In the last few years, a lot of people in the Bay Area outside tech are saying things like "why doesn't tech do more to build more housing." They pay taxes, and tech workers living in the cities are paying income and property taxes. The communities should…

You don't even need tax dollars to build more housing, all you need is not NIMBYism. Unfortunately the Bay Area has that in spades.

Everyone important in the Bay Area already got theirs. If you're important enough, eventually you will get yours too.

NIMBYism is great if you're a somebody.

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

#889

Post by tasty_freeze »

15155 wrote: post #594
tasty_freeze wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> another's particular distaste for self-preservation.

15155, I'm sure you are a smart person, but stop for a second and really inspect what you have done here. It is obvious to me you are not making a reasoned argument, but an emotional one, but think it is reasoned.

I spelled out clearly a situation where someone entering my home with a gun increases my chance of injury or death. Your retort is to claim I have a distaste for self-preservation. You didn't apparently think about what my claim was or counter with an argument why my logical deduction was wrong, but instead just assumed I don't want to avoid death or injury.

So let me break it down. I live in a safe neighborhood. I don't have a gun. If you, a good guy with a gun, entered my home at my invitation, did my chances of injury or death just go up or down? I'm not claiming it is a significant chance, just that it a large multiple of an already minuscule probability.

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

#890

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

kls wrote: post #760
lsllc wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly right! When there's no clear set of criteria for a permit and people get denied for this or that or maybe no reason at all. Just try getting a (unrestricted) LTC in Boston, near impossible -- unless you "have friends". This is how LTCs (License To Carry) work in Massachusetts, it's city by city dependent on the Chief of Police. The criteria should be clear and contestable in court. Like it or not, it'…

I say this as a big proponent of the right to self defense on a personal level, the current legal view is that, gun possession in the public square is not a right, it is a privilege, one that can be revoked as seen fit by the government. What is a right, is to keep and bear arms, this means one can maintain possession of their arms without fear of confiscation on their personal property or property in which they have…

> gun possession in the public square is not a right, it is a privilege, one that can be revoked as seen fit by the government.

Driving is also a privilege, yet no one has to bribe anyone to get a drivers license.

Post reply on HN