6 ms·

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 C

by 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
    - tesmar2 6y ago
      Right but this whole thing could have been avoided, impropriety and all, if the incentive were eliminated, which also has the tidy side effect of aligning with the spirit of the 2nd amendment. > There is no reason head of security at Apple needs to be armed That’s up to them, they can decide what kind of arms are carried.
codazoda 6y ago
I hear it's really difficult to get a CCW in CA unless you are rich or famous. I'm wondering if that's true?
- function_seven 6y ago
  Depends entirely on the county you live in. In many blue counties, this is true. In red counties, we have sheriffs that hand them out to almost all applicants, and encourage people to apply for permits. It also changes as new sheriffs are elected. Where I live, the previous sheriff was known to reject applications, but the current one is known for the opposite stance.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  In counties like this, this is the case. Well-meaning citizens say "Well, we trust the police so if we just let them use their discretion everything will be all right". That has the predictable effect it has everywhere in the world which is that the police then choose to monetize that discretion. Similar things happen in the planning department and public works department in San Francisco. Supervisors will receive half-price homes laundered through their parents, that sort of thing. Pretty transparent for the Third World (where sophisticated criminal agents will extract some of the value if they know you have some ill-gotten gains) but certainly sufficient for present-day US (where rule of law is generally available).
  - carapace 6y ago
    Yup > The Planning Department, Department of Public Health, and the City Administrator's Office have all been hit with subpoenas stemming from the sprawling federal investigation into corruption in San Francisco government. > ... > The City Attorney's Office's simultaneous investigation has already revealed a relationship between former Public Works director Mohammed Nuru and local entrepreneur Nick Bovis, in which Bovis appears to have taken donations from his charity (Lefty O'Doul's Foundation for Kids), given by city contractors, and funneled them to cover DPW holiday parties. Now it looks like the feds are following up on this pattern and trying to see if there are more examples of city vendors possibly disguising bribes that benefited city employees as charitable gifts. https://sfist.com/2020/07/15/ongoing-fbi-corruption-probe-hits-three-more-sf-city-departments-with-subpoenas/ https://sfist.com/2020/07/15/ongoing-fbi-corruption-probe-hi...
onepointsixC 6y ago
Unfortunately the Apple employee is likely to get the book thrown at them regardless. Permits and regulations are like candy to corrupt local officials. Often it's small businesses which get caught up. If they don't play along up then they'll be crushed. So you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. But the law doesn't care.
function_seven 6y ago
Agreed. What an awful situation to find yourself in. With the law enforcement demanding an exchange. You have to gamble one way or the other. Either you report the bribery attempt to the DA's office, and suffer the retaliation that ensues from snitching on the DA's friends; or you go along with the bribe and suffer the prosecution from the DA. How do you know which one to choose? Are you sure the DA will side with you if you blow the whistle? Will you or your employer suffer retaliation from the county law enforcement you just outed? Maybe you're blacklisted from future security gigs by being known as someone who rats on cops. Whenever government officials solicit bribes from private citizens, the enormous power asymmetry there should lead us to prosecuting just the government official(s). Of course it's not always this simple. Sometimes the private citizen wields more power than the civil servant they're bribing. In other words, the Mafia or other organized crime. But I'm not ready to put Apple in that column yet.
- microtherion 6y ago
  > How do you know which one to choose? In Apple's case, you could refer back to Apple's business conduct training program, a self directed online class which ALL of us are REQUIRED to pass ANNUALLY, and which states in no uncertain terms that NOTHING of value may be paid to a government official without prior approval from higher up, and describes precisely such "facilitation fees". And if the article is to be believed, the Apple officer in question was in charge of CREATING that class. I'm sorry; I don't think I've ever met them, but I don't see how this could possibly be excused, unless Apple Legal signed off on that bribe (stranger things have happened — Apple's then General Counsel once created a backdated paper trail for a fictitious meeting of the executive team — but still find that exceedingly unlikely).
  - mmastrac 6y ago
    > Apple's then General Counsel once created a backdated paper trail for a fictitious meeting of the executive team I forgot about this - the Apple options backdating scandal: https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-70.htm https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-70.htm
  - 6y ago
Wingman4l7 6y ago
> unless there was some reason the CCW permits should not have been issued (criminal conviction or some other risk) California has counties which are "may-issue" (getting your permit is decided on a case-by-case "need" basis by the local sheriff) vs. "shall-issue" (must be issued to the applicant if they have done paperwork correctly and pass background checks). Shall-issue has a very obvious flaw, which is on full display in this case.

by nickff 6y ago

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
  - tesmar2 6y ago
    Right but this whole thing could have been avoided, impropriety and all, if the incentive were eliminated, which also has the tidy side effect of aligning with the spirit of the 2nd amendment. > There is no reason head of security at Apple needs to be armed That’s up to them, they can decide what kind of arms are carried.

codazoda 6y ago

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

function_seven 6y ago
Depends entirely on the county you live in. In many blue counties, this is true. In red counties, we have sheriffs that hand them out to almost all applicants, and encourage people to apply for permits. It also changes as new sheriffs are elected. Where I live, the previous sheriff was known to reject applications, but the current one is known for the opposite stance.
renewiltord 6y ago
In counties like this, this is the case. Well-meaning citizens say "Well, we trust the police so if we just let them use their discretion everything will be all right". That has the predictable effect it has everywhere in the world which is that the police then choose to monetize that discretion. Similar things happen in the planning department and public works department in San Francisco. Supervisors will receive half-price homes laundered through their parents, that sort of thing. Pretty transparent for the Third World (where sophisticated criminal agents will extract some of the value if they know you have some ill-gotten gains) but certainly sufficient for present-day US (where rule of law is generally available).
- carapace 6y ago
  Yup > The Planning Department, Department of Public Health, and the City Administrator's Office have all been hit with subpoenas stemming from the sprawling federal investigation into corruption in San Francisco government. > ... > The City Attorney's Office's simultaneous investigation has already revealed a relationship between former Public Works director Mohammed Nuru and local entrepreneur Nick Bovis, in which Bovis appears to have taken donations from his charity (Lefty O'Doul's Foundation for Kids), given by city contractors, and funneled them to cover DPW holiday parties. Now it looks like the feds are following up on this pattern and trying to see if there are more examples of city vendors possibly disguising bribes that benefited city employees as charitable gifts. https://sfist.com/2020/07/15/ongoing-fbi-corruption-probe-hits-three-more-sf-city-departments-with-subpoenas/ https://sfist.com/2020/07/15/ongoing-fbi-corruption-probe-hi...

onepointsixC 6y ago

Unfortunately the Apple employee is likely to get the book thrown at them regardless. Permits and regulations are like candy to corrupt local officials. Often it's small businesses which get caught up. If they don't play along up then they'll be crushed. So you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. But the law doesn't care.

function_seven 6y ago

Agreed. What an awful situation to find yourself in. With the law enforcement demanding an exchange. You have to gamble one way or the other. Either you report the bribery attempt to the DA's office, and suffer the retaliation that ensues from snitching on the DA's friends; or you go along with the bribe and suffer the prosecution from the DA. How do you know which one to choose? Are you sure the DA will side with you if you blow the whistle? Will you or your employer suffer retaliation from the county law enforcement you just outed? Maybe you're blacklisted from future security gigs by being known as someone who rats on cops. Whenever government officials solicit bribes from private citizens, the enormous power asymmetry there should lead us to prosecuting just the government official(s). Of course it's not always this simple. Sometimes the private citizen wields more power than the civil servant they're bribing. In other words, the Mafia or other organized crime. But I'm not ready to put Apple in that column yet.

microtherion 6y ago
> How do you know which one to choose? In Apple's case, you could refer back to Apple's business conduct training program, a self directed online class which ALL of us are REQUIRED to pass ANNUALLY, and which states in no uncertain terms that NOTHING of value may be paid to a government official without prior approval from higher up, and describes precisely such "facilitation fees". And if the article is to be believed, the Apple officer in question was in charge of CREATING that class. I'm sorry; I don't think I've ever met them, but I don't see how this could possibly be excused, unless Apple Legal signed off on that bribe (stranger things have happened — Apple's then General Counsel once created a backdated paper trail for a fictitious meeting of the executive team — but still find that exceedingly unlikely).
- mmastrac 6y ago
  > Apple's then General Counsel once created a backdated paper trail for a fictitious meeting of the executive team I forgot about this - the Apple options backdating scandal: https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-70.htm https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-70.htm
- 6y ago

Wingman4l7 6y ago

> unless there was some reason the CCW permits should not have been issued (criminal conviction or some other risk) California has counties which are "may-issue" (getting your permit is decided on a case-by-case "need" basis by the local sheriff) vs. "shall-issue" (must be issued to the applicant if they have done paperwork correctly and pass background checks). Shall-issue has a very obvious flaw, which is on full display in this case.