45 ms·

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

• zepto 6y ago
  Apple’s security chief should be fired over this. But, this is common practice where there are ‘may issue’ CCW permits. Either have shall issue, or no issue. Having the sheriff decide just creates a valuable commodity.
  • binarycodedhex 6y ago
    I lived there for 35 years. Her Majesty Laurie only bestows a few CCWs to a handful of business people and her buddies. People can apply for CCWs all they want, but she'll never issue them willingly. She's a bureaucrat and a crook keeping the populace defenseless and maintaining LE job security. https://imgur.com/anZTMPx https://imgur.com/anZTMPx
    • calvinmorrison 6y ago
      Imagining getting indicted for having to bribe a local official to exercise an essential right, specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, and held up repeatedly in the courts (Hello DC v. Heller). It's a situation where there are two classes, the haves and have nots. If you aren't politically connected in NJ, NY, CA, etc - good luck. If you exercise these rights, you will end up in a prison cell. Even places like PA - a very gun friendly state - this is working its way through the courts for other reasons. For example, in Philadelphia they have closed the permitting office repeatedly for COVID, bystepping the law which requires them to issue a permit in 45 days, by simply not accepting applications. That's America. I can only hope the SCOTUS will take up new cases on this.
      • t-writescode 6y ago
        Given that major strides against Gun Control were originally performed by Ronald Reagan in California ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ), I have trouble imagining a Conservative Supreme Court will take a textualist perspective on gun control laws, despite their political leaning and assumptions here. edit: I can't spell :/
        • calvinmorrison 6y ago
          Basically whataboutism at this point. The conceal carry movement has grown leaps and bounds since the 70's and DC v. Heller wasn't until 2008.
          • t-writescode 6y ago
            Less "whataboutism" and more "the ship for undoing (arguably) unconstitutional gun control laws has long, long sailed and we're never getting those rights back." I suppose we _might_ get changes to the CCW laws; but, anything more complicated than that is never returning in the United States.
        • da_big_ghey 6y ago
          Yep, this is one of the best examples of the racism that underlies a large amount of gun control. For other examples, see the laws targeting Saturday-night specials, or even the army/navy laws in the Jim Crow south. Today we're seeing much of this repeated with increased paperwork requirements, taxes, and price increases. Regulatory requirements and ATF overreach decreases supply and helps move affordable firearms out of reach for many working-class or poor Americans. Many people are concerned by increased voting requirements preventing people from voting, but fail to understand that these regulations do the same for gun rights. Or maybe they do, and it's intentional. Reagan did a whole lot worse than this. He signed the Hughes Amendment, which cut off the supply of new, civilian-transferrable machine guns. I just can't understand how anyone likes the guy in spite of the awful things he did to gun rights. The Republican party is only somewhat less awful for gun rights than the Democrats.
          • rkt88edmo 6y ago
            Similar tactics when it comes to voter's rights/vote suppression. This is where the brain breaking schism happens. Same tools used to restrict vitally important freedoms, but the political divide will rabidly endorse one but fight the other. They are all attacks on freedom and democracy.
      • throwawaygh 6y ago
        > For example, in Philadelphia they have closed the permitting office repeatedly for COVID, bystepping the law which requires them to issue a permit in 45 days, by simply not accepting applications. This was a HUGE deal in the PA gun community, and I simply cannot understand why. 1. PA extended the expiration date on existing permits that expired after February until Dec 31. It was only new permits requests where the delay actually effected anyone. 2. The delays weren't specific to guns. Government offices closed and then opened at reduced capacity. This also happened for DLs. 3. The remedy provided by the state was also not specific to guns. Again, e.g., expiring driver's licenses were extended. 4. The state's choice not to prioritize streamlining this paperwork was reasonable. It had huge budget shortfalls and more important things to worry about (acquiring/distributing PPE, acquiring/distributing respirators, high unemployment, evictions, running elections, finding overflow space for hospitals, moving schools to remote, figuring out how to safely open up service businesses/schools, and the list goes on...) 5. To the extent that streamlining paper work should have been a larger priority, given the severe stress on logistics networks, I'd imagine CDLs would be the place to spend those limited resources rather than CCW applications. So, an unavoidable delay happened in LOTS of government processes -- only one of which was CCW issuance -- and the government provided uniform remediation to help partially mitigate the impact of delays in all of those processes. No one was coming for anyone's guns. TBH the foaming-at-the-mouth response to unavoidable reasonable delays in processing concealed carry permits during a public health emergency is the sort of thing that makes me (a gun owner) feel completely antagonistic toward the PA 2A advocacy community.
        • calvinmorrison 6y ago
          > I simply cannot understand why anyone gives a damn about this. Because I currently cannot get a LCTF from the city. That's why I give a damn. It is currently effecting me. I had no need for that before corona virus, I do need one now. Bucks county is issuing it in 15 minutes. Philly does a whole interview process which goes beyond a basic NICS check and they have chosen to be poorly staffed for a very long time. Again, they set up a complicated process for applications, then shut it down, all of which is of their own (the cities) volition. It's not reasonable delays. There are people who don't have their appointment until December, 2021. more than a year out. Anyway, it's all really arguing something that should be moot - A persons right should not depend on the government service choosing to open its office.
      • mattlutze 6y ago
        DC v. Heller specifically in the Decision text does not support or go against CCW laws or prohibitions, rather leaving those to the existing state and federal laws. It was a finding against a ban on private holding and keeping of firearms, and of keeping firearms in the home in a state easily fired.
        • Rebelgecko 6y ago
          Keep an eye on Young v Hawaii in the coming months. Should be interesting.
      • tshaddox 6y ago
        I don’t think the fact that something is an “essential right” implies that’s it’s okay to commit bribery or other crimes during the procedural steps to exercise that right. Presumably it ought to be illegal to bribe a government official to move your court date up, even though the right to a speedy trial is also protected by the bill of rights.
      • rkt88edmo 6y ago
        If you know that much, you know that Heller and McDonald do not address arms outside the home :)
      • binarycodedhex 6y ago
        That's pretty much it. They arrested the hooker instead of the pimp.
  • vl 6y ago
    And this is why we need federal shall-issue CCW permits and common weapon lows. This hot mess of nonsense across the states needs to stop.
    • kube-system 6y ago
      That mess of laws is an inherent part of our strong foundation in federalism.
      • pps43 6y ago
        Yet somehow the 1st or 5th Amendment are applied across all states uniformly, unlike the 2nd.
        • adrr 6y ago
          How Grand Juries work is up to the states. They vary a lot. Even how regular juries work is up to the states eg: Oregon doesn't require unanimous verdict. I am sure you can dig into 1st amendment and find differences across the states. I am sure states have laws on how and where you can petition.
          • wnoise 6y ago
            Oregon and Lousiana didn't. They do now, thanks to a recent SCOTUS case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodaca_v._Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodaca_v._Oregon
        • kube-system 6y ago
          States still have their own laws regarding legal procedure and speech rights, and they do vary by state. Those overarching rights are still a patchwork between states. Many states give protections that go beyond the requirements in the US Constitution -- this is completely legal and not uncommon. The Bill of Rights mainly defines which laws are illegal -- it does not prescribe what is legal. This is currently what is the case with shall-issue vs may-issue, at least until SCOTUS clarifies otherwise.
  • jakear 6y ago
    Ha! I’d bet the security head did not do this of their own accord, there was almost certainly a higher-up approving it. And what would apple do, replace their head of security (who is willing and able to navigate sociopolitical constructs in order to do their job to the fullest extent possible) with some random fellow who would turn around at the first “no” from some beurocrat and report back to senior leadership that the only people who will be allowed to have guns on Apple campus are the criminals? Highly highly doubtful. If they do get fired, it will be as a scapegoat, probably with a large severance, and any company in the world would hire them up immediately.
    • sigzero 6y ago
      You have no idea if what you are saying is even remotely true.
      • jakear 6y ago
        None at all. Neither did the parent. We’re two (now three) strangers sharing opinions.
  • vlovich123 6y ago
    What's even more galling is that if I were personally caught in such a situation as an IC, I would have been fired instantly. That he is the head of ethics compliance at Apple makes it even more galling, especially given that the company forces everyone through this kind of training when really only management & leadership violations of these ethics trainings can possibly get the company into serious trouble. > He has overall responsibility for Apple’s ethics and compliance program including Apple’s Business Conduct Policy, governing the ethical and legal obligations of Apple’s Board, executives and over 130,000 employees around the world, A delivery of 200 iPads as a bribe to get CCW permits makes me think it's more involved. Although this may be with his discretionary power, it's shocking to me that the donation was aborted as soon as warrants went out. I'd like to better understand what happened at Apple. Beyond the problem of "may issue" permits you raise, I'd love to remove this kind of discretion for discovery. For example, when bringing charges like this the DA must be obligated to initiate discovery of the company documents to investigate how far reaching the problem may be (settlements can't begin to be negotiated until the DA completes discovery).
    • blueflame7 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure this guy was just hired
      • vlovich123 6y ago
        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?
        • blueflame7 6y ago
          I stand corrected. I confused Apple and Twitter when recalling this article. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/nov/17/twitter-hires-veteran-hacker-mudge-as-head-of-security https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/nov/17/twitter-h...
  • gertrunde 6y ago
    I found one of the last paragraphs quite interesting... "He has overall responsibility for Apple’s ethics and compliance program" The head of Ethics being involved in bribery? Yeah, that's a problem.
    • zepto 6y ago
      That’s why the firing. On the other hand, I think he’s in difficult position given that this kind of shakedown is common practice. What’s especially absurd is that there are many people who carry concealed guns into the Bay Area legally every day, who just happen to live in counties where CCW’s are easily approved.
      • WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
        > who just happen to live in counties where CCW’s are easily approved. I wonder what the legal implications of "moving for CCW" would look like. In Florida, you just have to notify the state that you moved... do a little scoot to the right county, get the CCW, move back. This could be a hot fangled startup, "GunCCW"... "move to where you get your rights". Wonder what the legal penalty for letting someone change their address to your house for a bit would look like.
• underseacables 6y ago
  What are the needs for concealed carry at Apple? For some reason this reminds me of Apple’s security team attempting to recover (by force) the lost iPhone 4.
  • cbozeman 6y ago
    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.
    • tasty_freeze 6y ago
      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 successfully prevents it is vanishingly small. I realize that not everybody lives where that calculation comes out that way, but to claim it CCW makes sense everywhere is unsupportable.
      • 15155 6y ago
        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.
        • tasty_freeze 6y ago
          > 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.
• n0nc3 6y ago
  A related historical anecdote. The Mulford Act was the first law on the path towards California's strict CCW regime. Whatever your policy preference, it is history worth knowing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
  • tomatotomato37 6y ago
    Named after a Republican assemblyman, supported by the NRA, passed by a 2/3 vote in a Democratic assembly & senate, and signed in by Ronald Reagan, all due to a group of Black Panthers protesting inside the capitol building while armed. Who knew all you needed was a racial incentive in order to make the stripping of rights a bipartisan effort.
    • jeffbee 6y ago
      Arming black people is the only strategy for getting rid of the 2nd amendment that will actually work.
      • LyndsySimon 6y ago
        Not anymore. The firearms community is more inclusive than it has ever been. We - and I obviously count myself among them - see the racial disparity in access to arms as a key component of our legal strategy to get those laws overturned. Pretty much all gun control in the US is racist in its origins and usually in its modern implementation. "May issue" is a shining example of this.
        • hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
          When you say "Not anymore", that must have changed dramatically in the past 2 1/2 years. The NRA's silence in the Philando Castile case in 2017 was deafening.
          • casefields 6y ago
            Claudette Colvin.
• beervirus 6y ago
  It’s shameful that California restricts basic human rights like this.
  • larkost 6y ago
    I think there are good arguments on both sides of Concealed Carry Permits, but how do you come to the conclusion that this is a "basic human right"? If you feel that, please outline what age you think is too young to exercise this "right", conditions where it can be infringed (e.g.: a psychopath in jail), and are there spaces where it can be infringed (e.g.: can a daycare forbid it).
    • beervirus 6y ago
      The right to self-defense seems pretty fundamental to me. Denying someone the right to use the best self-defense tools available is an infringement of that right. > too young to exercise this "right" Lots of rights are restricted before you reach the age of majority. I'm fine with saying that when you're old enough to vote (or join the armed forces, or drive a car, or whatever) then that's when you're allowed to carry a gun. > conditions where it can be infringed (e.g.: a psychopath in jail) Sure, lots of rights are denied to people in jail. I'm fine with restricting this right similarly, and to people who have been judged (with due process protections) to be insane. > are there spaces where it can be infringed (e.g.: can a daycare forbid it) Although I think such prohibitions are generally a bad idea, I'm fine with people having the ability to enforce them on their own private property. "Your rights end at my doorstep," etc.
  • dang 6y ago
    Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. It makes discussion dumber and nastier, and we're hoping to avoid that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• striking 6y ago
  If the page is slow to load for you, consider https://archive.li/u04Sp https://archive.li/u04Sp
• dusing 6y ago
  It should not be so difficult for the head of security of the largest company on the planet to get a CCW permit. That is the problem. The system is so flawed, you have no choice but to play the game (bribe). You can't just not have a CCW in the position he holds.
  • lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > You can't just not have a CCW in the position he holds. How so? Unless you mean to claim Apple expects anyone hired for that position to knowingly break the law as part of having that position.
    • ApolloRising 6y ago
      He means to get that job the number of background checks he would have to go through far exceed even that of a CCW by a large margin. So if he can't get one even being so vetted that they are intentionally not giving them to anyone but people who the sheriff favors. That's the problem, the unfairness of deciding who gets the permit being decided by a single person with no need to justify the decision to anyone else.
    • astrea 6y ago
      He meant that having a CCW is necessary for the position of head of security for such an organization. The part you quoted makes no assertion that they should be expected to break the law.
  • mattlutze 6y ago
    Why would the Chief Security Officer of a massive corporation need a CCW?
    • nomdep 6y ago
      Not for him > Santa Clara County alleges that Mr Sung held back issuing concealed weapons permits to Apple's security team
  • _ph_ 6y ago
• nickff 6y ago
  The facts of the article seem to imply that the sheriff's office was blackmailing Apple. I am not sure I'd call this bribery, unless there was some reason the CCW permits should not have been issued (criminal conviction or some other risk). The Apple employee should have known better to agree to the quid pro quo, but I am not sure he should go to prison.
  • wtvanhest 6y ago
    This one is tricky. On one hand the CCW permit is for the personal benefit of the person receiving it. If the company needed armed staff, they could simply hire full-time armed guards. There is no reason head of security at Apple needs to be armed using a concealed weapon. They are not going undercover to bust smugglers or whatever. On the other hand, the payment was to the Sherriff's office, not the sheriff himself. That makes it a lot less like bribery to me because it still benefits the government. What makes it especially tricky is that it seems as though the Sherriff asked for the payment. If they did and provided official written documentation to Apple, that feels like a professional and real agreement to provide hardware to the government. At the end of the day, what will make this bad for Apple's head of security is that he was personally benefiting from the Sherriff's actions by receiving favorable treatment for a CCW he didn't need, and used company hardware to get that favorable treatment.
    • tesmar2 6y ago
      He shouldn’t have to apply for a permit in the first place. 2nd amendment should cover his needs. Having a permit process just opens up the system for corruption.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • wtvanhest 6y ago
        That really isn’t the point of my comment or this case. If someone wants to challenge the constitutionality of the ccw permit, that is a different topic
• xenocyon 6y ago
  Kudos to the Santa Clara DA for being willing to prosecute crooked cops in his own county. All too often DAs are afraid to proceed against local LEOs and justice is left undone even when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    Without the laws changing why do you think we won't have the exact same thing happen in just a short time?
• Teknoman117 6y ago
  This article seems to be less about CCW permits themselves and more that a state agency is soliciting bribes for various permits when they realize the wealth of the organizations seeking them. > Requested $75k of Apple tech to issue a CCW permit to the head of security, etc.
  • jeffbee 6y ago
    The Santa Clara County Sheriff is not a state agency.
    • loeg 6y ago
      That's a needlessly nitpicky interpretation of a minute part of GP's comment. It's a government agency in the state of California.
    • ketzo 6y ago
      I think GP means state in the metaphorical sense, referring to an office of a government, not an office of one of the 50 states in the union.
  • Rebelgecko 6y ago
    This sort of pay-for-play CCW permitting isnt unusual: it's very common in the May-issue counties that have the lowest acceptance rates (Bay Area and LA). Normally the bribes are just campaign contributions to the sheriff's reelection, so this is notable in that it was a much bigger bribe.
• google234123 6y ago
  California's sheriffs are completely corrupt wrt this the CCW process. It is impossible to get one with our being a political friend or giving massive donations.
• RachelF 6y ago
  Why do Apple employees need to carry concealed weapons?
  • ciarannolan 6y ago
    I assume these are high-level security personnel at Apple HQ. It doesn't seem unreasonable to have armed security at a place like that. > A grand jury alleges that Thomas Moyer promised to donate 200 iPads worth $70,000 to the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Office in exchange for four concealed firearm licenses for Apple employees. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/11/23/apple-exec-indicted-for-allegedly-trying-to-bribe-santa-clara-sheriffs-officers-with-ipads/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/11/23/apple-...
    • acomjean 6y ago
      I worked at a defense contractor. We didn't have security guards that were armed. It was hard to get into the facility, but still.
      • 15155 6y ago
        Did the CEO of that defense contractor ever come around? He probably had a protection team, as do most individuals in similar circumstances. Cook, Zuckerberg, et al. have private armed security.
        • acomjean 6y ago
          I think he came around once for a talk, but I didn't notice anything. I forget his name actually. Generally they kept the higher ups away from us in a different location. The Defense industry isn't particularly flashy.
    • tshaddox 6y ago
      But why concealed?
      • 6y ago
• rmk 6y ago
  Help me understand how this bribery works. If someone "donates" iPads to "the Sheriff's Office", does this mean that they can be taken by people who work there (for example, Sung could sell them on and pocket the cash)? What is the mechanism here? The cut-and-dry case would be asking for a cash bribe and pocketing it, so is this a way of making the bribe look like something else?
  • paxys 6y ago
    Something tells me this was never going to be an official, on-the-books donation. So yes, the iPads would likely never have made their way to the department itself.
  • _ph_ 6y ago
    Whether the recipients of the iPads had direct personal benefits or they were just donated for the department usage doesn't really matter with respect of bribery. Basically, you cannot make gifts of any larger value to anyone, who is somehow in a relationship to your business. Sometimes it is really annoying, if an honest gift was intended, but these szenarios are exactly the reason, why today you cannot make gifts which exceed a few free stickers or such.
    • rmk 6y ago
      I believe this sort of thing is explicitly outlined in the FCPA, which deals with corruption by US Corporations abroad. FCPA is pretty stringent, and this is what is covered in the in-house mandatory training you end up doing at any sizeable company. However, this is within the United States and this person appears to have been acting on Apple's behalf, so how does this fall afoul of the law (what law in particular)?
      • _ph_ 6y ago
        I am not in the US, but working at an American company. From my trainings I got the impression that the anti-corrupion rules are to be obeyed globally.
• asciident 6y ago
  I feel like the headline is misleading. The more straightforward headline would be that the sheriffs of Santa Clara county withheld concealed firearms licenses to multiple applicants unless they were offered bribes. It sounds like this has been going on for years. Apple's security chief was one of those applicants who paid the bribe to get the permit. But putting "Apple" in the title is more clickbaitey.
  • paxys 6y ago
    How is it misleading when that is exactly what happened? Of course "world's largest company involved in bribery scandal" is more relevant to people than "random town's sheriff department is accepting bribes".
    • bilbo0s 6y ago
      I think his point is that the world's largest company is not actually involved in bribery. It's just kind of there as window dressing in this case.
      • paxys 6y ago
        From the article: > Santa Clara County alleges that Mr Sung held back issuing concealed weapons permits to Apple's security team, until Mr Moyer agreed to donate $70,000 worth of iPads to the sheriff's office. So they most definitely are.
        • asciident 6y ago
          It's like if immigration officers don't let you in the country unless you give them a case of liquor. You give them the liquor, and are caught. The story should be that the immigration officers are corrupt and demanding bribes, rather than you, an employee of Hacker News or whatever, being caught bribing immigration officers.
          • bilbo0s 6y ago
• svrb 6y ago
  Neat trick: Agents of the state demand quid pro quo for the performance of basic and necessary state functions, then the state prosecutes citizens for complying with these demands. Heads I win, tails you lose.
  • CobrastanJorji 6y ago
    They also charged the agents of the state.
• yalogin 6y ago
  Wow the sheriff’s office is asking for bribes openly like this? I am really surprised. I wonder how common bribes are at that level of the government.
  • danbolt 6y ago
    I'm not an American, but Sheriffs are typically locally elected, correct? I'm curious how that can depend from county to county.
    • pageandrew 6y ago
      Sheriffs are locally elected.
  • bilbo0s 6y ago
    Well, probably less and less common since the advent of Civil Forfeiture. So, progress I guess? /s
    • giantg2 6y ago
      Haha
    • classified 6y ago
      I think greasing the wheels is so normal that everybody implicitly expects it anyway, while open highway robbery just feels a bit heavy-handed.
  • SrslyJosh 6y ago
    Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals.
    • eznzt 6y ago
      Source?
• KingMachiavelli 6y ago
  Seems a bit odd that Apple's Thomas Moyer is getting charged or at least that the headline suggests he instigated the whole thing. Unless Moyer was trying to bypass some process or law to obtain the permits, it sounds like the county police are more at fault for demanding the bribe and Moyer just made the bad call of agreeing to pay it. The article notes that the county/police had been doing this racket for years so it seems likely Apple/Moyer would rather pay the bribe rather than get mixed PR of being a whistle blower (e.g large news outlet runs a piece on how many CW permits Apple requests).
  • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The challenge is that it was (I'm pretty sure) within the sheriff's discretion to deny these permits in the first place. So while the sheriff's office was surely wrong to demand a bribe, there was no reason Moyer had to agree to pay it either.
  • sandworm101 6y ago
    Those who pay bribes for non-essential special treatment are as much criminals as those who ask for bribes. This guy has serious resources at his disposal and is allegedly willing to pay bribes. One must wonder if he has paid any others. I have little sympathy.
    • kmonsen 6y ago
      I don't really have sympathy, but I think as much criminals is a bit too strong. I am also wondering if this is essential equipment for the security team.
      • sandworm101 6y ago
        Hidden carry is never essential for security teams. It is about looks. They dont want the guns appearing in potential photos of Apple events. The guards can carry guns openly just like every single street cop.
        • 6y ago
• xyst 6y ago
  Just move your HQ to TX, and you can get all of the CCWs you want.
  • ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    I know you're joking, but this is one of the many reasons I'm glad to be going out the door here in California. This state loves to criminalize normal people and decriminalize actual criminal behavior. They won't cite you for public defecation but they will cite you for jaywalking, because jaywalkers can be squeezed.
  • Helloworldboy 6y ago
    They’re building a second donut in Austin, maybe the will. Hopefully tbh
• paxys 6y ago
  Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period. It isn't an "unfortunate situation" or anything else that people are calling it. It also doesn't matter who initiated the bribe. The employee, and potentially the company itself, absolutely need to be charged and prosecuted for it.
  • giantg2 6y ago
    Why the company? Seems like it was just this individual.
    • jkaplowitz 6y ago
      The individual was arranging a donation to be provided by the company, which only didn't happen because of the investigation itself. That is, the bribe would have been paid by Apple.
      • giantg2 6y ago
        But it probably had no idea that it was part of a bribe. How could it?
        • thatguy0900 6y ago
          Who would have to know before you would consider "the company" as knowing it? This was a chief executive doing it
          • giantg2 6y ago
            I'd say if the company was benefiting instead of just the individuals.
            • jkaplowitz 6y ago
              This was to indeed benefit Apple, by arming their security team.
• SrslyJosh 6y ago
  > "When high-ranking members of a law enforcement agency are at the heart of a bribery scheme, it tarnishes the badge, the honour, the reputations and - tragically - the effectiveness of all law enforcement agencies." Yep, that's definitely a black mark against the people that have been beating, gassing, and shooting unarmed citizens for most of the last six months. =)
  • Phlarp 6y ago
    oh yes, they just started doing all of this in the last six months.
  • kbenson 6y ago
    In what way is equating the actions of some police officers with all police officers different than equating the actions of some specific ethnic or religious group with all the people of that group? If it isn't okay to stereotype based on race or religious affiliation maybe we shouldn't stereotype based on profession either. Just because some group has become the whipping boy of the moment (for good reason), doesn't mean we should assume the worst of everyone in it.
    • echlebek 6y ago
      I'll explain how, even though I suspect you didn't take the time to think about it. It's because police groups are a command and control hierarchical organization. They aren't some loose group of people that share an attribute. When police officers commit crimes, their commanding officers share the responsibility.
      • kbenson 6y ago
        The implication of the original comment is that the negative influence of this small group of police officers really doesn't matter to the reputation of the police because they are "the people that have been beating, gassing, and shooting unarmed citizens for most of the last six months", which is also applying the actions of some of that group to the group as a whole. I understand it's cathartic to have an "other" that you can focus anger on, and it's extremely beneficial for those trying to push an agenda, and the police have largely brought this upon themselves by being so insular, dysfunctional and resistant to any change, but it is an organization full of people, and I'm hesitant to apply a group stereotype to all individuals in a group, for what should be blatantly obvious reasons.
• crazygringo 6y ago
  Two things, to be clear -- 1) The sheriff's office initiated/required the bribe, it's not like Apple's head of security was trying to bribe, they were being extorted 2) It's Apple's head of physical security, not software security (since it's not clear at first) I'm curious -- if a county sheriff's office demands bribes, what is the correct legal course of action in the US? Do you bring it to county court? To the governor's office? To state police? To state court? And how would you prove that it happened? Who would you work with to legally record audio of the solicited bribe?
  • paxys 6y ago
    > I'm curious -- if a county sheriff's office demands bribes, what is the correct legal course of action in the US? Do you bring it to county court? To the governor's office? To state police? To state court? I imagine anything other than "pay the bribe" would suffice.
    • SteveGerencser 6y ago
      Except not paying the bribe then opens you up to all sorts of incidental interactions with the sheriff's department. I have stacks of anecdotal interactions with local level police (both sheriff and police) that nothing surprises me anymore.
      • CobrastanJorji 6y ago
        Yes, and if Apple were a regular private citizen, I'd feel very sympathetic towards them here, but in this case Apple is basically the most powerful possible other party in a blackmail attempt imaginable. They're a $2 trillion company whose employees make up a significant section of the population of that area, including something like 500 full time lawyers.
  • vlovich123 6y ago
    It takes two to tango and those giving bribes are not exempt from anti-bribery laws (as you can tell since the giver also got indicted). I’ll also note that things like this are explicitly called out in the anti-corruption training every single employee of a large US corporation undergoes (or at least the US-based employees).
• jonas21 6y ago
  Kinda reminds me of that time the Cupertino City Council asked Steve Jobs for free Wifi and iPads in the hearing to approve Apple's new campus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M&t=790 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M&t=790 But I guess they all had a good laugh in the end, so it doesn't count?
  • 1123581321 6y ago
    It’s not illegal to joke about bribery.
    • sjwright 6y ago
      Correct. And it’s not illegal to investigate when nominal jokes about bribery may be construed as code inviting actual bribery.
      • 1123581321 6y ago
        I recognize the clever point. Investigations in cases such as these will gather evidence to bring to a grand jury, which will issue indictment. So investigation would either proceed to either the grand jury trial, or be abandoned due to lack of evidence. In the case of jokes, it would be the latter, and experienced offices would recognize this early, perhaps before beginning, and focus on other cases.
    • mlyle 6y ago
      I'm not sure why people are treating this like it's bribery. Free wifi would be something that inures to the benefit of the city / jurisdiction, not primarily to the individual decisionmakers or their department. It may not be something legitimate that they can make planning approval dependent upon, but an elected body trying to negotiate something that sweetens the deal for their electorate is completely legitimate. Indeed, back before California ended development controls, my city's planning department effectively ran a huge reverse auction, picking the housing developments that would make the biggest street and park improvements in excess of the statutory minimums to authorize for each year's development quota. (A bit more complicated than that: various ways that the development exceeded building code or had additional amenities also counted for points in the "competition").
• giantg2 6y ago
  This is why gun rights organizations fight for shall-issue rather than may-issue.
  • pokstad 6y ago
    Yup, friends of the sheriff are known to get permits much easier than the common folks.
    • pageandrew 6y ago
      Unconscionable that Constitutional rights that belong to all Americans are basically paywalled by Sheriffs.
      • tesmar2 6y ago
        Yep. It’s a racket. Imagine if you had to get your sheriff’s permission to open a radio station — given that you only broadcast party friendly programming.
        • giantg2 6y ago
          So the FCC?
          • tesmar2 6y ago
            Bad example on my part. Let’s just say to have a conversation with a neighbor on any particular subject.
  • guscost 6y ago
    I will never understand the perspective that “more corruption among gun owners” is somehow better than “more gun owners”.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
• ponker 6y ago
  Why should Apple security have CCW permits? Why do they deserve them any more than a random person? They should not be able to defend Apple property with lethal force.
  • kmonsen 6y ago
    The need to protect executives with lethal force perhaps. I see the CA law only allows carrying unloaded firearms if you don't have CCW, which is kind of useless to protect someone.
  • alfalfasprout 6y ago
    Why shouldn't people be able to defend themselves and their property w/ lethal force? Should we just let them die for the police to arrive 10 min late?
    • ponker 6y ago
      I would let anyone defend themselves with lethal force, but not extend that right to their property, whether yours or Apple’s.
• alasdair_ 6y ago
  I thought everyone knew that the best way to bribe the police for a ccw is to buy a poor rural town a new squad car in exchange for them letting you become a police officer (with no actual hours). Once you are a cop, federal law allows concealed carry in all 50 states, regardless of state law.
  • jasonladuke0311 6y ago
    A cute trick I saw when working in a gun store was getting deputized in some two-horse town so you could buy post-sample machineguns[0]. I looked up one customer's "agency" and the town didn't exist. It was like 4 abandoned houses and it looked (from Google Maps) like no one had been through there in years. [0] A machinegun manufactured after the passage of the 1986 Hughes Amendment is non-transferrable and can only be possessed by law enforcement agencies or dealers (SOT) with a "demo letter". Dudes effectively were LEOs in a non-existent town and bought machineguns that otherwise couldn't be owned by individuals.
    • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      IIRC ATF clamped down on this.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• paxys 6y ago
  This is the perfect example for why the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act needs to apply within the country's borders as well. Apple would be in an absolute world of pain right now (from both the DOJ and SEC) had they been caught bribing a random sheriff in Canada or Italy or anywhere else, but large companies getting into such relationships with local governments across the US is sadly too common.
• mlindner 6y ago
  Wow corrupt police, what a surprise. Hopefully the two innocent people (namely those giving the bribes) are acquitted. The ones guilty here are only the police.
• HarryHirsch 6y ago
  It worries me that the local sheriff thought he could extort bribes from a multinational company and get away with it. And Apple is very much top of the list. Of course the cops are corrupt, but this degree of corruption is something you'd have thought would happen only in Brazil. It's either more common than we know or this individual is unusually stupid.
  • cowmoo728 6y ago
    Bribery for gun permits is also very common in NYC. It's well known that you either have to employ ex-NYPD in some capacity to get a gun permit, or pay cash. Maybe it's slowed down since some high profile arrests in 2017. https://abc7ny.com/nypd-police-corruption-investigation/1914685/ https://abc7ny.com/nypd-police-corruption-investigation/1914... DAs don't like investigating cops.
    • ed25519FUUU 6y ago
      This is exactly why governments love red tape and "oversight". When you have to come to GOVERNMENT to ask for permission, they can make it worth it for them. No surprise this is so prevalent in NYC and Santa Clara. They can deceive people that the strong requirements is under the guise of gun control or some such.
    • HarryHirsch 6y ago
      The sentences were exceedingly lenient: https://nypost.com/2019/09/25/ex-cop-who-cooperated-in-nypd-bribery-scandal-gets-no-jail-sentence/ https://nypost.com/2019/09/25/ex-cop-who-cooperated-in-nypd-...
• mullingitover 6y ago
  > “Call this quid pro quo, call it pay to play, call it give to get—it is illegal,” Rosen said. “It is illegal and it deeply erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system..." To be completely fair, events in the course of this year have shown that the criminal justice system wasn't that trustworthy to begin with. I don't think there's a lot of confidence left to lose at this point.
• ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  > A grand jury has issued a pair of indictments accusing Apple’s head of global security, two high-ranking officials from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office and a local business owner of exchanging bribes for concealed gun permits. Hah! There actually isn't any other way to get a CCW permit in most of Northern California, let alone Santa Clara County. It's basically a racket under the guise of gun control. See this article from last year[1] and this youtuber[2] who tried to chronicle the process. > The Santa Clara County sheriff’s system for granting concealed weapons permits is so inconsistent — and the record-keeping so fragmented — that it is difficult to discern any public-safety rationale behind a process the District Attorney’s Office is investigating over allegations of political favoritism. To apply for a CCW you need to show your life is in immediate and credible danger, and then wait... months for a permit approval that will probably never come. This state loves to make law-breakers out of good citizens. I'm really glad they're cracking down on the process, but it's the STATE and COUNTY LAW THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE! Not sending a few scabs to jail for playing the game they created. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/24/spotty-records-may-hinder-das-investigation-into-how-santa-clara-county-grants-concealed-gun-permits/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/24/spotty-records-may-hi... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wRgjsSHaGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wRgjsSHaGE
• gregschlom 6y ago
  This story reads straight out like the kind of scenario we have in our yearly mandatory ethics and anti-corruption training: "You're conducting some business with [public institution] and the person you're talking with would like your company to donate something to the local charity. What do you do?" Interesting to see that those hypothetical scenarios aren't so hypothetical.
  • SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
    That “training” is completed by clicking ‘Next’ 50 times, preferably as fast as possible so you can get back to work. It exists so the company can say it tried to prevent this and shouldn’t be held responsible.
• pasttense01 6y ago
  California: what a weird state: in the majority of states virtually anyone can easily get a CCW unless they have felony conviction or something similar.
• efoto 6y ago
  I've lived in a couple of countries where bribes are a way of life. I'm happy it's not the case in CA. Still, does anyone here know of a country, where artificially limiting resources do not encourage to bribes? Better yet, if somebody names a country, where bureaucrats are by law forbidden to limit the resources artificially, I'll strongly consider immigrating.
• ngcc_hk 6y ago
  Strange for Facebook and Apple be dealing with such a small character and still ... did they do more bribe than these. Is that in their culture as well?
• myrandomcomment 6y ago
  The issue here at the end of the day is that getting a CCW is up to the whim of the local police. Either the federal government or the state government should present a well documented procedure for this that is not susceptible to the whims of a local official.
  • rjkennedy98 6y ago
    It isn’t in all states. Jessie Ventura changed the rules for that when he became governor of Minnesota.
    • tonyztan 6y ago
      Exactly, this is a problem with the "may-issue" system that California and a minority of other states use. Most states have "shall-issue": there is a specific list of objective requirements set forth by law; if an applicant meets the requirements, then the official must issue the license. California's may-issue policies give local officials too much discretion, leading to arbitrary decisions and bribery (apparently). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Shall-issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_...
• Keverw 6y ago
  I thought this was common place in California since they are a may issue instead of a shall issue state. Remember like 3 years back coming across a YouTube video on this, someone wanted a list of permit holders and how much they donated. But the sheriff office wasn't cooperating with his freedom of information request and tried to say it was illegal to film them without permission. Don't remember what county or the video. Sounds they doesn't respect your first or second amendments in California. I used to dream about moving there for tech, but with the high taxes and bureaucracy glad I didn't... Still want to move somewhere with more tech than where I am now though, been flipping back and forth between Austin and Salt Lake City (which looks like I might have a opportunity lined up for early next year!). Seems like Utah is growing for tech, 2 hour flight from SV so investors like that since they could fly early in the morning, do some business deals and fly back for dinner.
  • thatguy0900 6y ago
    I can't imagine the police only ask for bribes occasionally, once you start why only get new ipads
• rietta 6y ago
  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. Those licenses would have been recognized in much of the country outside of California. However, now once convicted they will be ineligible under Federal and State laws to even possess a firearm for the rest of their lives.
  • paxys 6y ago
    There is no way that the Apple executive will actually be convicted of anything.
  • zionic 6y ago
    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.
    • rietta 6y ago
      There is an argument to be made that licensing in general is a poll tax. There is an equal protection argument against not recognizing permits issued to out of State residents who meet the same standards except for residency. Sadly, I am not holding my breath to see either come to the test.
      • tptacek 6y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ
      • frob 6y ago
        Can you please make the argument that licensing in general is a poll tax? This statement seems very outlandish to me and I cannot find any papers or articles to support it. The equal protection argument also seems incorrect to me. If this were the case, states would be under scrutiny for basically any discrepancy between their laws. Why should voters in Texas be required to show IDs when those in California aren't? Why should drivers in Wisconsin keep getting their license back after their 5th DUI when people in another state lose it after 2?
• mgarfias 6y ago
  This wouldnt have happened in a state with shall-issue permitting system. Just sayin.
• blueflame7 6y ago
  Great example of why CCWs should be unconstitutional. How come some people can pay to exercise their 2nd amendment right?
• carls 6y ago
  I spoke on a panel with Rick Sung, the Undersheriff who allegedly withheld permits until Apple coughed up the iPads. At the end of the event, each panelist was offered a Starbucks gift card by the event organizers. Rick gave his Starbucks gift card to me, saying, "since I'm here as a public official I can't accept this. Otherwise it would be counted as a bribe." Wild.
  • prepend 6y ago
    What’s funny is he still accepted it, but he gave it to you. Seems like he was either not up on his ethics, or he just wanted to appear ethical. He could have refused the gift. But not sure what California’s rule is, but I expect that accepting nominal gifts under a low dollar threshold is allowed.
    • ec109685 6y ago
      Yes, you can’t accept and donate.
    • blub 6y ago
      That was win win win: * seem ethical by not "accepting" gift * give the worthless gift away and make the recipient be in your debt
    • notsureaboutpg 6y ago
      Yeah, just like for anyone in the corporate world, accepting nominal gifts under a dollar amount of like $50 is allowed (sometimes $100)
    • prepend 6y ago
      Holy cow, the limit for local officials in California is $500 per year from a single source. [0] That seems really high to me and seems that it’s completely legal for this official to get $500 from each applicant, given that it’s done in a deniable manner. It’s $50 for a federal employee [1]. [0] https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/Public%20Officials%20and%20Employees/LocalGiftFactSheet.pdf https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/Pu... [1] https://ask.fedweek.com/federal-government-policies/rules-gifts/ https://ask.fedweek.com/federal-government-policies/rules-gi...
• Ice_cream_suit 6y ago
  "Sung—second in rank only to Sheriff Laurie Smith in the sheriff’s office—is accused of deliberately holding back four concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits for Apple’s security team until the Cupertino-based corporation agreed to donate 200 iPads worth about $75,000 to the Sheriff’s Office, Rosen said. Sung and Jensen allegedly worked together to solicit the exchange of CCW permits for the tech donation from Apple."
• seany 6y ago
  This type of crap is why CA needs shall issue permits for CCW.
  • tesmar2 6y ago
    Or just do away with permitting and let anyone carry.
    • seany 6y ago
      No objection from me.
• ab3rC1te 6y ago
  What ever happened to the home of the brave and the land of the free. Well shit, appearntly it went down the drain about 200 years ago. Can't own a weapon of your choice without bribing people anymore. Shit can't even own a suppressed weapon without registering with the FEDs and dishing out 5 years and 10k later. Go to a 3rd world country where its ok to knock on the door and see someone owning an AK47 without it being registered or bribed. Your ass would be shot. This country has seriously went to shit. Home of the mother fucking pussies and slaved to your own fucking land.
• trhway 6y ago
  how one makes the head of security of such a huge transnational corp as Apple without being able to handle a simple situation of a midlevel bureaucrat soliciting a bribe?
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• cocoa19 6y ago
  Yikes... I guessed they skipped the mandatory corporate ethics training videos or they just didn't care. This is the reason large employers have mandatory yearly training videos on ethics, sexual harrassment, insider trading and a plethora of other topics. I used to feel severely inconvenienced every year, "wasting productive hours", until I was aware of the world out there and how frequent are problems in these areas.
  • tjpnz 6y ago
    People at that pay grade are seldom "inconvenienced" by company e-learning systems.
• floren 6y ago
  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.
  • baby 6y ago
    If you live in a place where you need a concealed carry permit to feel safe, you probably should move to a safer place.
    • Zhenya 6y ago
      The state will protect you.
      • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        I wonder if the other poster had feelings about the police protests? That person aside... What a time for some people to hate guns and recommend how only the evil racist police should have them.
        • wongarsu 6y ago
          The wide availability of guns seems to be one of the major underlying reasons for the evil police. Taking them away wouldn't magically fix things, but it would help keep things from regressing after fixing the more direct problems
          • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
            >The wide availability of guns seems to be one of the major underlying reasons for the evil police. What? Wrongful police shootings may dominate the headlines but they are a rounding error compared to asset forfeiture abuse, discriminatory enforcement, lesser forms of police violence and good ol' influence peddling. For everyone that's shot for no good reason there's hundreds of people who are unnecessarily roughed up, tazed or just have their money taken under color of law (I consider a fishing stop that ends in a BS ticket instead of a warning to be in the latter category).
• chokeartist 6y ago
  Nothing says "screw you" like making you jump through hoops ($$) to get a legal instrument (CCW) that should otherwise be available to you.
• normand1 6y ago
  I've lived in the Bay Area most of my life. It's well known the only way to get CCW permits in the Bay Area is to "donate" to the local county sheriff. I'm surprised someone was actually caught. I moved to Washington and got my concealed carry in a few months after filling out paperwork. No "donations" required.
  • option 6y ago
    why the Sheriff is not indicted???!!!
    • gundmc 6y ago
      The Undersheriff and Sheriff's Captain were also indicted.
  • baby 6y ago
    I'd assume individuals who want a permit vs campus with concentrated amounts of high-net-worth individuals is a different problem. I can't fathom why anyone would want to live in a place where they themselves need a CCW permit to feel safe.
    • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Personally. I don’t want to live in a place where people are expecting fire. A CCW isn’t about “feeling” safe. It’s about recognizing that the police/government might not be able to protect you (and has no duty to) if you need it. It is your civil right to keep and bear arms. I’m not sure you would buy the your own argument if it was on any other right besides guns.
      • baby 6y ago
        can you kill someone with a fire extinguisher?
        • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• smallnamespace 6y ago
  One of my econ profs proposed legalizing the payment of solicited bribes in India [1]. So if an official solicits a bribe, you pay it, then can immediately report them with no legal repercussions. This removes the incentive to hide corruption and let it fester. This also strongly discourages people from asking for bribes in the first place. [1] https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/50335.html https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/50335.html
  • lovecg 6y ago
    At first this didn’t make much sense to me as the incentive to protect the official is still there — you’re getting something you want, so why ruin it? But reading the abstract it’s referring to a specific kind of a bribe — where you have to pay to get something you’re entitled to anyway (under a threat of unnecessary delays for example). I doubt it would have much of an effect on another kind of bribe where there’s discretion and you’re getting something you might not otherwise get at all (as is the case in the article).
• bassman9000 6y ago
  the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe A private citizen of limited means paying a bribe is somehow reasonable because there's a huge power imbalance. Comments from this thread condoning bribery. Bonus irony is that 2A is so broken in CA that even Apple security chief has to go through the "process".
• agensaequivocum 6y ago
  As many of us have said for years in the gun community, gun control is really about disenfranchising the lower classes.
• cromwellian 6y ago
  Step 1: "I'll have an answer for your shortly." Step 2: Apple calls FBI. FBI will take the call. Set up a sting operation. Step 3: Call the LEO back, reconfirm the bribe "just to confirm, this is 100 ipads for XX CC permits?", this time with the blessing of the FBI. Step 4: Arrest LEO, Apple claims PR success in rooting out local corruption. Every other response, that argues the Apple employee had no power but to agree to this bribe, is wrong. So if China offers Apple free slave labor from Uighur camps and they accept, will people be explaining how they had no choice? There is always a choice.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• satisfaction 6y ago
  This really throws water on any claims that corporations are the entities we need to worry about. It's clearly over reliance on governments that is the problem. Restricting the 2nd amendment is bad enough but then extracting value from others to exercise the 2nd amendment is laughable. Anyone that holds California up as a model for the rest of the country really needs to start paying attention.
  • wavefunction 6y ago
    I guess I'd look at the crime rate of the area to assess the necessity of corporatist CCW permits. The intersection of capitalism and freedom is certainly a rotten terrain though perhaps not in the way you'd hope me to think. Perhaps one can choose none of the above and be ethically absolved.
• crackerinchief 6y ago
  They broke the first rule of ccw bribe club
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Glyptodon 6y ago
  Is it wrong of me to think lack of "shall issue" tends to lead to things like this?
  • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    Absolutely. Same thing happens in New York where if you are a celebrity it’s easy to get a permit.
• wonder_er 6y ago
  There's a good book called _Police Union Power, Politics, and Confrontation in the 21st Century: New Challenges, New Issues_, [0] and it feels highly relevant to understanding how all of this is playing out. I propose that persons who read that book will be less surprised by how these events will proceed than someone who has not read the book. [0]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4982654-police-union-power-politics-and-confrontation-in-the-21st-century https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4982654-police-union-pow...
• tonymet 6y ago
  CA ccw laws are corrupt. Almost everyone who has a CCW either bribed or got it through a buddy . CCW permits are as corrupt as handicap placards
• balozi 6y ago
  Obviously, the officers would have most likely liquidated the iPads. How do you suppose they would have done so?
• onetimemanytime 6y ago
  Look at it differently. In some countries, say Russia, the system and laws are designed in such a way that bribes are needed to do business. Simple as that. Don't pay bribes and 100 cops and forensic accountants will show at your headquarters, closing it down and jailing you. Now, Apple HAS to protect its headquarters and people. For that you need licenses which apparently weren't given. So, close Apple headquarters down or...? 99.99% of the fault here lies with the laws /state. The problem can be solved by donating before you ask the for "favors," so no quid-pro-quo. I'd think that Apple generates quite a bit of business for the county /state so they should favor them a bit. Or at least don't try to stop them.
• mattnewton 6y ago
  I've taken the stock anti bribery web "training" multiple times now at multiple FAANG companies; the first time was at Apple. And every time I wonder "who is this for? Who thinks a little bribery is going to end well for them and their company!?" Well, I guess I have an answer now. I wonder if this is actually much more common than I've realized.
• ashtonkem 6y ago
  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.
• idolaspecus 6y ago
  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.
• tonyztan 6y ago
  This is why gun permits should be "shall-issue" rather than "may-issue." In other words, there should be a clear set of objective requirements; if an applicant meets these objective requirements, the government official should be required to issue the permit. This would be similar to driver's licenses. "May-issue" jurisdictions, such as California, give too much discretion to local officials, leading to arbitrary decisions and cases of bribery. Most states are "shall-issue" jurisdictions and do not have this type of problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Shall-issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_...
  • jaywalk 6y ago
    Even shall-issue has become a problem now in some places thanks to Covid. If offices are closed or under-staffed, that "shall-issue" doesn't mean a whole lot.
• chmod600 6y ago
  Sincere (not rhetorical) questions: What is the reasoning behind CCW vs open carry in a holster? Is it to give some kind of tactical advantage to the weapon carrier? Is it about some kind of general fear people have seeing a gun (and if so, why not police?)? Is CCW considered to be protected by the second amendment? It says "keep and bear" which seems more related to a visible weapon to me, but I'm not sure of the history.
  • agensaequivocum 6y ago
    Yes generally it is viewed as tactical advantage. CC has never been held in court to be protected by the 2nd. OC has at the state level only I believe.
• 2rsf 6y ago
  > Sung—second in rank only to Sheriff Laurie Smith in the sheriff’s office—is accused of deliberately holding back four concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits for Apple’s security team until the Cupertino-based corporation agreed to donate 200 iPads worth about $75,000 to the Sheriff’s Office, This is wrong on so many levels... why does Apple need CCW security personal ? how could Apple agree to pay bribery ? who is stupid enough to ask for bribery ?
• darkstar_16 6y ago
  Would've been better if the first word wasn't Apple! He's a private citizen that did something on his own accord. That headline makes it sound as if Apple, the company, was somehow involved.
  • gotstad 6y ago
    That certainly depends on whether he bought the 200 iPads personally, or if they were provided by Apple.
• darkstar_16 6y ago
  The headline makes it sound somehow as if Apple was involved here.
• woahAcademia 6y ago
  There's a phrase "where there is rot, there is more" You bet Apple has arranged bribes across the world and companies. Not saying any specific FAANG is better, but there seems to be a crowd of people who repeat commercials about privacy and security despite both being disproved on a weekly basis.
• mathattack 6y ago
  Why aren’t both parties being prosecuted?
• lasermike026 6y ago
  Notice that the sheriff who received the bribe was not charged.
• Kharvok 6y ago
  The real criminals are the California CCW laws
• crb002 6y ago
  Apple openly bribed the City of Waukee to abate $170m in State property tax. "... the company is contributing up to $100 million to a newly created Public Improvement Fund dedicated to community development and infrastructure around Waukee." [1] Wouldn't it be nice if we could all cut a $1000 check to the city to evade $1700 in State/County property tax on our homes? [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/08/apples-next-us-data-center-will-be-built-in-iowa/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/08/apples-next-us-data-c...
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• virmundi 6y ago
  Oh well, shall not be infringed means nothing. Interesting how if they all followed the law of country this would not be an issue.
• mikece 6y ago
  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.
• efsavage 6y ago
  Discretion is the root of inequity.