11 ms·

That's probably one of the craziest things I've heard. Never commit a crime to look a certain way because it won't look that way tomorrow. The police could be

by wolco2 6y ago

That's probably one of the craziest things I've heard. Never commit a crime to look a certain way because it won't look that way tomorrow. The police could be trapping you. If not they now have dirt on you. How in the world can you explain that to a judge if it came to that?

Swizec 6y ago
When a person with a gun says do something, you do it. Especially if said person is an LEO in a country famous for above-the-law LEOs. Principles are easy to have from the safety of a keyboard. How many of us would keep them in a real world situation?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  I guess it depends on whether the Apple guy had a reasonable fear for his life. If the Sheriff said, "Hey it would be cool if you guys gave me some iPads maybe I could grease the wheels on your gun permit," then I don't buy it. A reasonable person should not be afraid of the sheriff at that point. There's some risk in reporting the situation, but it's not that serious. Maybe you don't feel comfortable reporting him, so perhaps you decide you don't need that CCW after all. Giving the bribe is far from the only option, and the presence of any element of risk is not carte blanche for illegal activities. If the sheriff said gimme the iPads or I'll blow your brains out, that's another story. But I guess that's not what happened here.
  - noodlesUK 6y ago
    I think this is the particularly pathetic thing. Low level LE does this all the time, but in this case, Apple (and the security guy) should have reached out to their (likely) myriad contacts within the FBI/DOJ/CA State. It’s one thing if the little guy caves to government extortion. It’s another thing altogether if the big guy is willing to tolerate it where it could do something about it.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. GP is appalled at commenters breaking for Apple, and I'm just pointing out that their response is best understood as a projection of themselves into Apple's shoes. And in that case the response is reasonable. But of course the unreasonable thing those commenters need to realize is that Apple is insanely powerful and insanely powerful institutions putting up with corruption is Not OK.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Is it ‘Apple’ or is it the head of security though?
        o-__-o 6y ago
        It’s the head of apple security. That is Apple. Apple would do well to swiftly terminate their relationship and get in front with PR statements of their own and further acts to minimize blowback. Then, when the head of security has his day in court, Apple will be vindicated. Then, and only then, is it the head of security. Until that point it’s entirely Apple (and why companies make such a big deal about anti-bribery training) FWIW, it would be just as bad of a look if instead the head of security’s wife was engaged in this scheme at her own workplace. And Apple would be 100% correct to still terminate their relationship for fear of bad press
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        Depends on how disposed you are to like the company I guess? When a high level director at Google does something bad, we say on here that Google did something bad. Same at Facebook. I don't know why it should be different for Apple.
        unishark 6y ago
        But the issue in question at the moment isn't about whether we get to rub things in the face of apple-loving posters. The question is about whether this individual wields the supposed power Apple has in this situation.
- progman32 6y ago
  As there's no indication in the article that Moyer or his team were threatened with violence, I'm reading and responding to your post as a theory ("People's ethics are often overridden under the weight of authority.") vs advice for the future ("When a person with a gun says do something, you should do it"). Let me know if I'm mistaken. Your question is difficult to answer, but I ask in return: Is a general propensity to engage in an act sufficient to excuse it? I will concede that "every person has their price". At some point we cross the line from "asking for a bribe" to "engaging in extortion" to "direct threats of violence". Moyer ran the ethics and business conduct programs. Is there an expectation that someone in that position does have a durable set of principles, and a price higher than a CCW permit? The appropriate consequences for the involved parties are, of course, along completely different ethical lines.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  That’s a little dramatic.
- rkt88edmo 6y ago
  There was zero threat to get the payment. There are certain counties and sheriff's where campaign contributions are one of the main routes towards obtaining a permit. No one is getting pressured by threat of force to do this. This is not a new game in CA. Other's have been called out for it.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    I feel like this thread went a bit south... the second half of my comment starts with: >> But this isn't that.
jbuzbee 6y ago
I've gone through various "International Training" sessions at my company and one of the things they teach is that if a foreign official says something like, "hmmm... your papers are invalid, but I can help you out for $100" or similar, you should pay and immediately report (and expense) it on return. I know one coworker who went through this traveling through a small country.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Your company trained you to pay bribes? That sounds...unusual, and not at all lawful (according to US law, if you are based in the US).
  - jbuzbee 6y ago
    Yep, they did and do. And we are a US company with lots of lawyers. My coworker was at a tiny island airport in the middle of the Pacific. If he didn't pay, he wasn't going anywhere.
  - s4n1ty 6y ago
    Valid point re: US law, but isn't the alternative training employees to get into potentially dangerous confrontations with officials in corrupt countries?
  - onenine 6y ago
    There is an exception under the foreign corrupt practices act (FCPA) that if you do as parent poster described (pay and report as such) then it is legal. Otherwise you are correct, it is highly illegal.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Wow, TIL.
  - JackC 6y ago
    Sounds like there's a distinction under the FCPA between actual bribery (illegal) and grease payments (legal), where an official requests a bribe to do their job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
t-writescode 6y ago
Honestly, this sounds like it's coming from someone that lives in a country where bribes aren't commonplace. It's good that you and I both live in countries like that; but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common. From the other comments in this thread, it's suggesting that the CCW permit process in California is very bad and broken and these bribes have been an illegal method of actually getting CCW permits.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  I remember reading in the calguns forums a few years back that sheriffs had de-facto outlawed concealed carry in CA with this extortionate program. By the way Apples head of security isn’t the only one. Nanci Pelosi has had a CCW for a long time while simultaneously fighting to suppress gun ownership in her own city and state.
  - nradov 6y ago
    That's nothing new. Senator Dianne Feinstein got a permit to carry a concealed handgun in San Francisco. There has always been one set of rules for the powerful and another set for the rest of us.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      One rule for me, another for thee...
      - simonh 6y ago
        Er, no. Different laws at different times. If CC were made illegal, it would be illegal for her too. Or is she actually advocating for different laws for different people?
        tesmar2 6y ago
        Yes but you shouldn’t need a permit to get one, in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Having permits just makes 2 classes of people, those with connections to the sheriff and regular Joes.

by wolco2 6y ago

Swizec 6y ago

When a person with a gun says do something, you do it. Especially if said person is an LEO in a country famous for above-the-law LEOs. Principles are easy to have from the safety of a keyboard. How many of us would keep them in a real world situation?

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
I guess it depends on whether the Apple guy had a reasonable fear for his life. If the Sheriff said, "Hey it would be cool if you guys gave me some iPads maybe I could grease the wheels on your gun permit," then I don't buy it. A reasonable person should not be afraid of the sheriff at that point. There's some risk in reporting the situation, but it's not that serious. Maybe you don't feel comfortable reporting him, so perhaps you decide you don't need that CCW after all. Giving the bribe is far from the only option, and the presence of any element of risk is not carte blanche for illegal activities. If the sheriff said gimme the iPads or I'll blow your brains out, that's another story. But I guess that's not what happened here.
- noodlesUK 6y ago
  I think this is the particularly pathetic thing. Low level LE does this all the time, but in this case, Apple (and the security guy) should have reached out to their (likely) myriad contacts within the FBI/DOJ/CA State. It’s one thing if the little guy caves to government extortion. It’s another thing altogether if the big guy is willing to tolerate it where it could do something about it.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. GP is appalled at commenters breaking for Apple, and I'm just pointing out that their response is best understood as a projection of themselves into Apple's shoes. And in that case the response is reasonable. But of course the unreasonable thing those commenters need to realize is that Apple is insanely powerful and insanely powerful institutions putting up with corruption is Not OK.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Is it ‘Apple’ or is it the head of security though?
      - o-__-o 6y ago
        It’s the head of apple security. That is Apple. Apple would do well to swiftly terminate their relationship and get in front with PR statements of their own and further acts to minimize blowback. Then, when the head of security has his day in court, Apple will be vindicated. Then, and only then, is it the head of security. Until that point it’s entirely Apple (and why companies make such a big deal about anti-bribery training) FWIW, it would be just as bad of a look if instead the head of security’s wife was engaged in this scheme at her own workplace. And Apple would be 100% correct to still terminate their relationship for fear of bad press
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        Depends on how disposed you are to like the company I guess? When a high level director at Google does something bad, we say on here that Google did something bad. Same at Facebook. I don't know why it should be different for Apple.
        unishark 6y ago
        But the issue in question at the moment isn't about whether we get to rub things in the face of apple-loving posters. The question is about whether this individual wields the supposed power Apple has in this situation.
progman32 6y ago
As there's no indication in the article that Moyer or his team were threatened with violence, I'm reading and responding to your post as a theory ("People's ethics are often overridden under the weight of authority.") vs advice for the future ("When a person with a gun says do something, you should do it"). Let me know if I'm mistaken. Your question is difficult to answer, but I ask in return: Is a general propensity to engage in an act sufficient to excuse it? I will concede that "every person has their price". At some point we cross the line from "asking for a bribe" to "engaging in extortion" to "direct threats of violence". Moyer ran the ethics and business conduct programs. Is there an expectation that someone in that position does have a durable set of principles, and a price higher than a CCW permit? The appropriate consequences for the involved parties are, of course, along completely different ethical lines.
Spooky23 6y ago
That’s a little dramatic.
rkt88edmo 6y ago
There was zero threat to get the payment. There are certain counties and sheriff's where campaign contributions are one of the main routes towards obtaining a permit. No one is getting pressured by threat of force to do this. This is not a new game in CA. Other's have been called out for it.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  I feel like this thread went a bit south... the second half of my comment starts with: >> But this isn't that.

jbuzbee 6y ago

I've gone through various "International Training" sessions at my company and one of the things they teach is that if a foreign official says something like, "hmmm... your papers are invalid, but I can help you out for $100" or similar, you should pay and immediately report (and expense) it on return. I know one coworker who went through this traveling through a small country.

triceratops 6y ago
Your company trained you to pay bribes? That sounds...unusual, and not at all lawful (according to US law, if you are based in the US).
- jbuzbee 6y ago
  Yep, they did and do. And we are a US company with lots of lawyers. My coworker was at a tiny island airport in the middle of the Pacific. If he didn't pay, he wasn't going anywhere.
- s4n1ty 6y ago
  Valid point re: US law, but isn't the alternative training employees to get into potentially dangerous confrontations with officials in corrupt countries?
- onenine 6y ago
  There is an exception under the foreign corrupt practices act (FCPA) that if you do as parent poster described (pay and report as such) then it is legal. Otherwise you are correct, it is highly illegal.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Wow, TIL.
- JackC 6y ago
  Sounds like there's a distinction under the FCPA between actual bribery (illegal) and grease payments (legal), where an official requests a bribe to do their job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

t-writescode 6y ago

Honestly, this sounds like it's coming from someone that lives in a country where bribes aren't commonplace. It's good that you and I both live in countries like that; but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common. From the other comments in this thread, it's suggesting that the CCW permit process in California is very bad and broken and these bribes have been an illegal method of actually getting CCW permits.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
I remember reading in the calguns forums a few years back that sheriffs had de-facto outlawed concealed carry in CA with this extortionate program. By the way Apples head of security isn’t the only one. Nanci Pelosi has had a CCW for a long time while simultaneously fighting to suppress gun ownership in her own city and state.
- nradov 6y ago
  That's nothing new. Senator Dianne Feinstein got a permit to carry a concealed handgun in San Francisco. There has always been one set of rules for the powerful and another set for the rest of us.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    One rule for me, another for thee...
    - simonh 6y ago
      Er, no. Different laws at different times. If CC were made illegal, it would be illegal for her too. Or is she actually advocating for different laws for different people?
      - tesmar2 6y ago
        Yes but you shouldn’t need a permit to get one, in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Having permits just makes 2 classes of people, those with connections to the sheriff and regular Joes.