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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by giantg2 »

cgriswald wrote: post #905
giantg2 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two party consent doesn't matter here. The federal courts have consistently upheld that it is one's first ammendment right to record public officials in the performance of their duties. As a member of the public, you are permitted to record your interactions with police. Now, could it still end badly? Sure. If they are willing to break the law for a bribe, then why not take it further if they find out you are recordi…

Which federal court ruled you could record the police in private in a two-party consent jurisdiction?

If they are on-duty, they have no expectation of privacy.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2201016?guccounter=1&guce...

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

#992

Post by et-al »

Schiendelman wrote: post #982
et-al wrote: post #928

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Places like Japan have negative birthrates and restrictive immigration policies. NIMBYism is a reaction to a sudden influx of newcomers to an area. As such, hot remote work spots like Bend, OR are very likely experiencing a similar NIMBYist mindset.

Tokyo has continuous growth, and almost no NIMBYism. While Japan as a whole has negative birthrates and restrictive immigration policies, Tokyo has neither. The comment you’re responding to is a real, important difference between Japan’s response to growth (in the Tokyo area) and other cities and regions’ responses to growth. Handwaving it doesn’t help.

I'm curious what you think is the difference between Japan's response to growth versus other places. Given the fact that Japan zones on a federal vs local level, this already reduces the potential of NIMBYists blocking new development. However this does not mean that NIMBYism does not exist there.

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

#993

Post by joshuamorton »

jki275 wrote: post #989
joshuamorton wrote: post #980

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nfa wasn't, unless you're broadening anti-gang sentiment in the 30s to like anti Irish it italian sentiment. And it's dubious that this is true for other regulations against "assault weapons".

You don't think the 94 crime bill (AWB) was racist? Everyone else does...

There's two answers to this, that both have a bit more nuance than I expect HN to be okay with.

One is that the AWB wasn't a racist provision of the overall bill. The gun control measure was not rooted in racism.

The second is that the bill as a whole wasn't "rooted" in racism. It certainly was a bad bill that had terrible consequences, and we should undue a lot of the damage it did, but the intent of the bill was, in part, to help the black community (and it had support from many people in the black community at the time). Horribly misguided in hindsight though.

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

#994

Post by cgriswald »

giantg2 wrote: post #991
cgriswald wrote: post #905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which federal court ruled you could record the police in private in a two-party consent jurisdiction?

If they are on-duty, they have no expectation of privacy. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2201016?guccounter=1&guce...

And do you think it's likely they'll be 'on duty' when this discussion occurs?

You're really trying very hard to downplay the risk of gathering this evidence. If you are discovered and you gathered evidence, you might have that evidence confiscated or you might just be dead. If you are discovered but didn't manage to get the evidence, you might be charged with wiretapping. (Or they might just kill you anyway.) Even if all works out in the end, you're looking at a legal battle. (Most people don't want to be the one fighting a case that sets precedence even if federal courts largely seem to rule in their favor.) And all that struggle is for evidence that might not even convince anyone to start an investigation and/or may not be admitted to court.

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

#995

Post by User23 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #837
cptnapalm wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in a library. I've learned though our ethics training that we can't accept cookies from patrons because that might be seen as bribery. There's a strange requirement to accept food: you have to eat it in front of the giver. So we can't take cookies, but the legislator can be fed by lobbyists.

I can’t speak to your state laws, but at the federal level, giving certain officials free food would be a felony, unless it was finger food provided at a “widely attended event.”

Which naturally includes junkets to posh resorts.

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

#996

Post by Schiendelman »

et-al wrote: post #992
Schiendelman wrote: post #982

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tokyo has continuous growth, and almost no NIMBYism. While Japan as a whole has negative birthrates and restrictive immigration policies, Tokyo has neither. The comment you’re responding to is a real, important difference between Japan’s response to growth (in the Tokyo area) and other cities and regions’ responses to growth. Handwaving it doesn’t help.

I'm curious what you think is the difference between Japan's response to growth versus other places. Given the fact that Japan zones on a federal vs local level, this already reduces the potential of NIMBYists blocking new development. However this does not mean that NIMBYism does not exist there.

It largely doesn’t exist there because they’re so monocultural. Zoning in the US was created explicitly to preserve racial divisions in neighborhoods.

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

#997

Post by Schiendelman »

o-__-o wrote: post #682
rkt88edmo wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The articles frame it as the Head of Apple security acting on the behalf of 4 potential Apple security team licensees - so at least 3 of those Apple employees aren't him. He's acting on behalf of his employees, I'd say that is Apple stepping in.

And this is why your company develops strict anti-bribery programs as soon as reasonably possible.

Apple already had those programs (I’ve taken the training!) - they are not enforcing their policies, and protecting someone who broke them.

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

#998

Post by philwelch »

injb wrote: post #838
philwelch wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? Gun control laws have a very long history of racial motivations.

Laws don't have motivations. People have motivations.

Yes, and that includes motivations to write and pass laws. Apologies for the shorthand there.

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

#999

Post by jki275 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #993
jki275 wrote: post #989

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think the 94 crime bill (AWB) was racist? Everyone else does...

There's two answers to this, that both have a bit more nuance than I expect HN to be okay with. One is that the AWB wasn't a racist provision of the overall bill. The gun control measure was not rooted in racism. The second is that the bill as a whole wasn't "rooted" in racism. It certainly was a bad bill that had terrible consequences, and we should undue a lot of the damage it did, but the intent of the bill was, i…

Sure it was.

The crime bill was designed to stop the "super predators" (to quote two democrat presidential candidates). It was a racist depiction of black men. It included a provision to outlaw scary black guns. You can't really divorce the two and pretend they're not related.

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

#1000

Post by joshuamorton »

jki275 wrote: post #999
joshuamorton wrote: post #993

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two answers to this, that both have a bit more nuance than I expect HN to be okay with. One is that the AWB wasn't a racist provision of the overall bill. The gun control measure was not rooted in racism. The second is that the bill as a whole wasn't "rooted" in racism. It certainly was a bad bill that had terrible consequences, and we should undue a lot of the damage it did, but the intent of the bill was, i…

Sure it was. The crime bill was designed to stop the "super predators" (to quote two democrat presidential candidates). It was a racist depiction of black men. It included a provision to outlaw scary black guns. You can't really divorce the two and pretend they're not related.

Like I said, if you aren't interested in discussing this topic with nuance, don't respond here. HN isn't for simple political flamebait and potshots.
Post reply on HN