Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

A private citizen of limited means paying a bribe is somehow reasonable because there's a huge power imbalance.

Refusing to pay a bribe is also a refusal to participate in a racket. Local police can be extremely petty and extremely violent [1]. If a police officer told me he'd let me off for a bribe, I would probably pay it. I wouldn't be paying to get what I want. Rather, I would be paying to avoid the appearance that I disapprove of the bribery (and the possibility of resulting reprisal).

E: And, of course, I would report that bribe as soon as it was safe to do so. And, of course, I'm referring to a scenario where I, as an individual private citizen, am told to pay money to a person with a gun who controls my immediate safety... which, importantly, brings us to the second half of this comment:

But this isn't that.

A high-level exec at one of the world's most powerful companies paying off a local LEO for a permit instead of, IDK, contacting the State or the Feds, is beyond inexplicable.

[1] https://oklahoman.com/article/5666549/woman-recognizes-attac...

> A high-level exec at one of the world's most powerful companies paying off a local LEO for a permit instead of, IDK, contacting the State or the Feds, is beyond inexplicable.

The problem is that, at least in many jurisdictions, gun permits basically only exist as a means for police to solicit bribes. There's literally an entire industry of people whose job is bribing police departments to get gun permits. C.f.: https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+concealed+carry+bribes

This sort of thing is the result of a permitting policy called may-issue. Basically it means the party that issues permits, usually the local sheriff or police department, can deny a concealed carry application for any reason. States adopt this policy as a way of punting CC policy making down to the local level.

In practice the may-issue policy has repeatedly proven to be an irresistible opportunity for graft. Despite this some states continue to maintain may-issue policies, including California and New York.

This is exactly right! When there's no clear set of criteria for a permit and people get denied for this or that or maybe no reason at all. Just try getting a (unrestricted) LTC in Boston, near impossible -- unless you "have friends". This is how LTCs (License To Carry) work in Massachusetts, it's city by city dependent on the Chief of Police.

The criteria should be clear and contestable in court. Like it or not, it's a constitutional right and the law should be "shall issue" (unless good reason not to -- and I'm all for reasonable "good reasons not to").

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

This is why even as far back as the early 1800's it was not uncommon for local sheriff's to mandate a leave your guns at the sheriffs post at the edge of town policies. Yet, the local barkeep could still have a shotgun under the counter. Town was the public square, where the local bar, while a public establishment, was a private proprietorship.

Many of these type of rights extend from the pre-US castle doctrine laws which summed up shortly basically conferred the concept, that a person is king of their castle, the states rights should be significantly curtailed, when it comes to a personal private property. More modern day utilization tends to just boil it down to self defence, in ones private property, but historically it held a view which helped shape many of the personal liberties that were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

Since nearly the foundation of the USA public possession has always been seen as a privilege extended by the state. In earlier times this was generally pathwork local law and the local sheriff view of guns carried in their town. Now it is generally more formalized via a state based licencing scheme.

A good read on rulings that imply it is a privilege:

https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/tns-c...

Converse to the last paragraph though is that while precedence and the lack of challenges early on to public restriction lead to the concept of public possession being a privilege, the subject is now in modern day being battled out in the courts, and there have been some rulings ignoring history policy precedence

A good read on rulings that imply it is a right:

https://reason.com/2014/12/05/is-concealed-carry-a-privilege...

With all that being said, may issue is fraught with corruption and unnecessarily restrictive, in my state we have a shall issue and it works well, especially coupled with our strong castle doctrine laws. So well, that at the entry of my state an anti-gun group put up a billboard that said "Visitor's Warning - Florida residents can use deadly force". The billboards actually has the opposite effect than the group had intended so they removed them.

I would be a proponent of each state going to a shall issue system and extending the public privilege to a national recognition and reciprocity system, much like the state's driver licence systems are. That being said, it's fairly consistent that the state has almost since the beginning seen public possession as a privilege extended and not an absolute right.

A good read on the subject and precedence for public gun carry, from a purely historic perspective is this article:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-...

on a completely tangential rant, class 3 FFL transfers, require a sheriff's signature and are just as rife with corruption and cronyism. I used to live in a county where the local sheriff was very vocal about the fact that he would not sign for class 3's, yet every deputy or buddy, cousin or uncle had one. I would love to see the local law enforcement sign off requirement, for Class 3 be removed and rather just make it a duty to inform local law enforcement that one is in possession of a class 3.

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

Right or privilege, it should not be conditioned by bribes. And when a LEO is involved in a bribery case their punishment should start at several times that of the other (non-authority) person because it seems like that right/privilege comes at the end of extortion.

No argument there, I am not a fan of may issue, just ban public carry for everyone in those states and let the chips fall, but the connected don't like it when their bodyguards can't carry guns. In essence it is a ban for only a certain class of people.

As a matter of principle, I will contest any attempt to frame the right to carry on one's person a weapon into the same vein as a driver's license. It is an explicitly granted right. If you look at how traffic enforcement has worked out (in spite of the fact we still play it up as a privilege), senior citizens and the disabled are still at a major disadvantage in mobility in their more enfeebled years, and no semblance of lessening of the regulations of any option to move around ever becomes apparent. It is also utilized as a significant source of revenue generation as particularly notorious small towns are well known for changing up speed limits ob chunks of major roads they straddle just for the bump in revenue.

It is also notable, that gun control also fell under that same set of "State's rights" contributing to the original Civil War, and to hell with the well soap boxed dolts who insist that the only issue the Civil War was predicated on was Slavery. It wasn't. It was only indirectly so because the framework for expansion of Slavery was seen as falling under the banner of State's rights at the time, just as much as gun control itself was also seen as falling under State's rights. It's not a dog-whistle, it's what it bloody was.

Tangent aside, it basically boils down to the fundamental division of "rural v. Urban" in the United States, and to be frank, I side with the ruralites. Just because a bunch of people gather together in one place should not generate some emergent privilege that everyone loses an explicitly granted right except law enforcement. Period. Gun control almost universally arises out of some group being uncomfortable with another group having guns, and the group that's uncomfortable tends to be fine and dandy letting the authorities strut around with them, and would be unlikely to carry anyway; much like how pro public-transit folk seem to be more than okay with onerous vehicle regulation, but balk when the same laws or tenets are applied to them. Better to just not throw anyone under the bus at all.

Call me a yokel if you want. I've seen too much flung in the way of wrapping up other folk's rights in my lifetime in the name of public safety with no signs of a return in sight. Until I see some loosening up, or some honest give and take, I"m in the "not one more inch" camp.

I am not your opposition on this, just stating how the law currently looks at it, and citing the precedence that has been cited before, specifically gun control in the wild west. That being said, I am OK with it being a privilege if it were a universal shall issue. I would prefer that it be decided that it is a universal right, but I am ok with either outcome. I am not a fan of may issue as it tends to be a privilege that only well the privileged gets to enjoy.

With all that being said, I see magazine capacities, foregrip bans, scary gun cause it is plastic and black and those kind of rulings as a direct affront to the 2A because they apply to stuff in my home, I would be a felon if I lived in those states, literally one day I would be legal and the next I am a felon. With no recourse, even the Automatic Weapons Ban in the 80's allowed for the FFL 3 classification and the tax stamp to keep the weapons one already owned and while I am not advocating for a grandfathering of reasonable capacity magazines, and black rifles I am citing that in the AWB there was at least a path to keep your existing stuff legal.

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

I'm not sure what you think "bear" means in "the right to keep and bear arms."

The Constitutional right to own a firearm doesn't mean much if you're not allowed to have it outside of your home.

"This is why even as far back as the early 1800's it was not uncommon for local sheriff's to mandate a leave your guns at the sheriffs post at the edge of town policies. Yet, the local barkeep could still have a shotgun under the counter. Town was the public square, where the local bar, while a public establishment, was a private proprietorship."

I wish people had a better sense of this earlier social arrangement.

It was the most conservative of approaches to gun possession and was imposed by the town elders who wanted to regulate and order behavior in the public sphere.

Now we find ourselves in bizarro world where firearms politics are exactly flipped: a free wheeling "let-do" policy is championed by "conservatives" and a highly regulated policy is championed by "liberals".

In reality, a historical perspective shows us that the ownership of modern weapons by average citizens is off the charts liberal. That is absolutely where it sits on a political spectrum of rights. It is, historically, the prerogative of the most conservative and reactionary interests to prohibit/restrict arms.

All that to say: I prefer the conservative approach. I, too, was very young once and very excited to exercise my rights and privileges ... I open-carried regularly, had a CCW, etc., and the result was a lot of discomfort and bad feelings. Carrying a firearm is a provocative act and it makes sense that conservative actors in a community would try to keep that at bay.

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

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

> Like it or not, it's a constitutional right and the law should be "shall issue" (unless good reason not to -- and I'm all for reasonable "good reasons not to").

I believe the state of the law is that either concealed carry or open carry must be available. They can't both be may-issue, but one can be if the other isn't.

And I tend to agree that that's enough to satisfy the argument "it's a constitutional right".

That's not correct. California makes open carry flatly illegal, and concealed carry is may issue.

>States adopt this policy as a way of punting CC policy making down to the local level.

They implement it as a wink and nod end run around the 14th amendment. The whole purpose is so that the states can play dumb when the towns "accidentally" install sheriffs/police chiefs who turn out to be racist and deny all the irish/blacks/latinos their rights.

No, this has American politics inside out. Red states are typically shall issue and blue states are typically may issue. To the extent that it's about introducing discretion as an means to accomplish a specific policy objective by stealth, that objective is gun control, not racism. An end run around the 2nd amendment, not the 14th.

What does red or blue have to do with this?

Rights are for everyone. Government privileges always end up favoring particular groups for personal or political reasons. To demote a right to a privilege is to prefer this kind of favoritism over equal protection of the laws.

If "blue" states just didn't like guns, then they would simply ban all CCW permits. But they do like guns -- as long as the "right" kind of people have them and the guns look the "right" way.

Army and Navy laws, Cruikshanks v. US, point systems for handguns, gun control in CA are irredeemably motivated by the fear of giving black men the means to defend themselves and their rights.

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

I call BS considering 99% of sheriffs are locally elected officials. They aren't "accidentally installed".

On a side note, the nice thing about sheriffs being elected is they don't have to listen to a god damn thing the state tells them to do (within confines of law obviously). They work directly for the people of their community.

But what if you are a minority in that community and they aren't dependent on your vote to be elected?

No, otherwise you'd seem them in areas with high racial strife.

It's a way of allowing rich limousine liberals to get security guards with guns, while denying the common person the same right.

Exactly. In NYC retired cops can't even get them, but bodyguards of the rich can. Not to mention all gun laws are infringements of the second amendment.

A CEO I know (billion dollar revenues, multinational corporation ) tells me that:

1.The tricky bit is knowing the right amount of the bribe to pay.

Pay a Senator or a member of the House too little and you have made a powerful enemy.

Pay too much and they figure that they have a sucker that they can keep milking. And of course, you have also wasted a couple of extra million that could have been directed to another Senator....

2.The bribes are structured as payments via "lobbyists" or as "campaign donations"

3.In every country bribes are structured just well enough to evade local scrutiny.

Thus in Indonesia it is suitcases of cash.

In the US it is directorships of companies or well paying board jobs for children of politicians or investments in a politicians son-in-laws hedge fund.

In The Netherlands it's kind of the same I think. Politicians often end up with very lucrative private sector jobs at the end of their political careers. No doubt at least part of the jobs granted is payment for services rendered and part to get access to a political party.

In the EU it's the same situation as well. I mean this situation [0] with Neelie Kroes is quite suspect as well, isn't it?

>Taxi app Uber, which continues to battle regulatory clamp downs and legal confrontations in Europe, has appointed a former VP of the European Union’s executive arm, the European Commission, to its public policy advisory board as it looks to grease the gearbox of its regional fortunes.

The ex-VP in question, former digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes — who stepped down from her role in the European Union’s executive body in November 2014, after serving a five-year term in digital policy (and some 10 years in all as a European Commissioner) — was a vocal supporter of Uber during her time in post.

Prior to leaving office in 2014, for example, Kroes loudly condemned a ban of Uber in Belgium, publicly proclaiming that “Uber is 100% welcome in Brussels and everywhere else as far as I am concerned.”

I believe this kind of corruption is endemic in the Western world. For most "normal" voters this kind of corruption is quite invisible I believe, in contrast to people being payed directly a suitcase of money.

---

[0]: https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/06/uber-appoints-former-ec-vp...

This claim is not something you need a CEO friend to tell you. Anyone on Reddit's conspiracy theory boards could give you exactly the same message. (BTW it's interesting to note that in my limited experience high level execs are just people, and prone to the same foibles as other people too. They don't automatically have insight into all things.)

So, at least in that issue, people on Reddit's conspiracy theory boards are less gullible than you, and other people believing these things don't happen/are rare, and that we live in a Disney world...

(And a difference with the CEO, that you probably missed, is that they have more likely than not done these kind of bribes themselves).

I'm gullible for my skepticism about an anonymous internet commenter's "CEO" friend's generic "in-the-know" boasts?

This sounds like some dialogue from a Scorsese film...

Don't forget lavishly paid speeches and inexplicably popular books of memoirs.

I know an urban county in California where it's an open secret that one can greatly increase one's chance of having a carry permit approved by making the maximum allowed contribution to the sheriff's reelection campaign.

This kind of reminds me of the UC admissions bribery scandal. There are legally approved ways to bribe schools and politicians, so if one is inclined to do so, at least follow them. But in both cases the idiots in question have gone about it in a flagrantly illegal fashion. I am not condoning the practice, but merely recognizing the system as it actually functions.

The frustrating thing in the US is that bribing the sherrif or the head of the university is legal, but bribing the low level paper stamper is illegal.

That provides huge incentives for the most corrupt to rise to control the institutions they’re supposedly policing.

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

I don't think these are the same thing. Donating to the Sherriff's reelection campaign is a lot closer to a bribe than donating to a university, because the Sherriff is benefiting personally a lot more than the head of a university is from a donation to the school.

It would be more analogous if the donations were somehow made to the Sherriff department's budget.

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

This is because Texas is a shall issue state where generally, you apply, meet the specified requirements, get a background check, pay your fees and the state will issues you a permit. If you pass all the checks you get the permit, no other considerations are made.

New York is a may issue state which generally/usually means a local law enforcement official will make a judgment call. Some have a blanken no issue policy, others sometimes waive that blanket no issue policy if they can be persuaded.

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

Reminds me of an episode in 'Billions'.

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?

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.

I used to work for one of the oil giants. They had codified standards for bribery, a la: "While we do not approve of bribery, we recognize that in some places we do business, they are an unfortunate necessity. To that end, we have standardized our practices to keep everyone involved as safe as possible".

I hope there standard was to not do it, because it is a US crime for any US national, citizen or resident as employee, officer or agent of a US corporation to bribe or otherwise corrupt a foreign official.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac...

One common exception is the so called grease payments which you’ll need to get anything done in any reasonable time frame.

> Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform.

I have worked for a non-US company that was owned by a US company. I had to go through training and one of the courses was about bribery.

It was an absurd experience. The training material kept repeating that I absolutely could not bribe a non-US official. However, in my country ALL officials are non-US and bribery is also illegal so what were they trying to tell me with this "non-US" criterion?

The message I got from training course is that bribery is bad (I knew that), bribery is illegal (I knew that) but it's okay if I bribe a US official (really?).

My understanding is there is an exception for bribes needed to get an otherwise typical process complete. In other words, you’re entitled to some permit, but without a bribe you’d never get it or not get it in a reasonable period of time.

Such a payment is considered a grease payment (and not a bribe), which is lawful under FCPA.

I think you're assuming your parent is an American?

(Looks like they're Australian: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25194634)

It is likewise illegal for Australian citizens, residents or corporations (with the same sort of "Facilitation Payment" carve-outs mentioned elsethread):

https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2020-09/factsheet-2-the-f...

A bit of both. I live in the US now, but grew up in Australia (and born in Scotland, so I have quite the passport collection at this point).

It’s funny - I did give that some thought - and then concluded (VERY INCORRECTLY I ADD), well he worked for one of the BIG oil companies — more likely than not an American.

Upon giving it a little more thought it turns out that only 2 of the top 10 oil companies are American. So, yeah, my bad.

I wouldn't call it paying a bribe so much as paying a ransom. It does not surprise me at all that this is happening given how much authority the Sherrif's have over CCW and how few they give out.

Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.

The ability to deny something is very powerful. Gives others great power over others.

I know a guy who works on oil tankers and he was doing a gig in Africa. As he told it, basically every port there has a deal where you have to smuggle oil or stuff for them and tricks to get through standard inspections etc., etc.

So a new captain comes on board and first port they get in he refuses to do this - they refuse to let them in the port - they were out at sea without resupply 20 days and running out of food... the company had to fly in a different captain to relieve this guy and he told me by day 2 weeks in they were already joking around how the captain could have an accident ...

> but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common.

Can you give any examples of those countries? Countries with high amount of bribing tend to also be countries with large off-the-record economies, therefore I am skeptical of that proposition.

FYI in the US, you can claim tax deductibility on bribes paid in foreign countries iff they are not legally classified as bribes in the respective local laws.

>> but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes

> Can you give any examples of those countries?

Germany used to be like this, but it they changed the law many years ago. I don't know if there are any such countries remaining. The article below is from 1995, when bribes were still tax-deductible.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1995-08-06/germany-w...

I know of examples from El Salvador, but couldn't find good info on their tax laws in Spanish. This report mentions that extortion rackets are so pervasive that larger companies hire full time negotiators to manage their bribes, and have it built into their business models. No matter how you codify it, or whether or not you really call them officially "tax deductible", they are in fact a real operating cost that an American business doesn't ever have to consider but a third world one does, and it drives up cost for the end consumer.

Extortion is mainly demanded from businesses, but local residents may also have to pay “taxes” or renta to access their homes. No business sector is spared, and goods and professional services may be demanded instead of, or in addition to money. Large businesses and transport operators have dedicated employees to negotiate extortion fees, which are built into >their financial models. Implicit risk starts as soon as someone is targeted to pay, and it rises if they are unable to pay or the renta charged increases. Those who refuse to pay are killed.

https://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/in...

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.

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.

She had one because the anarcho hippie terrorist groups of SF targeted her and shot up her home several times. When the group was arrested/disbanded, she let her permit lapse.

While I agree it sucks that some rich and powerful people seem to live by a different set of rules, it's not like she had a permit just for kicks.

My childhood home was burgled several times and death threats written on it. I was assaulted several times.

But I’m not rich and powerful, so.

I recall Sherif telling my dad if he shot someone, to make sure the body was in the house pointing toward the inside. That way he wouldn’t be arrested.

So we were under constant assault, and if we tried to defend ourselves we had to make sure everything was “perfect” so as not to get arrested.

Complete insanity.

Moved away as fast as possible.

But that’s the whole point of a CCW permit. If you’re at risk you should be allowed to have one, and yet she works to make that impossible for all but the powerful and connected. It’s fine that she has one but it’s not fine that she doesn’t let regular Californians go through the same application process without money or connections.

In the spirit of the 2nd amendment, you shouldn’t need a permit. Also happens to close one avenue for corruption.

However, a person living in a dangerous neighborhood has just as much right to protection as an elected official. And the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have a qualifier “if you can prove you need it.”

What gets me as a Brit is when wealthy Hollywood celebrities campaigning for gun control point to our country's gun laws as an example and then insist that of course their security guards should be allowed to carry guns. (Private sector armed security is basically illegal here.) Of course, what really really gets me is when they talk about our total ban on guns while insisting that their security guards don't count because they have handguns and not big scary rifles, because the total UK ban they're likely thinking of is on handgun ownership specifically.

One rule for me, another for thee...

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?

IDK why you're getting downvoted.. I looked into this when I moved to SF and was astonished that it was basically impossible to get a CCW. Coming from the Detroit area this was a MAJOR shock to me.

I'm surprised Pelosi thinks she even needs one. Rules for you and not for me.

A CEO from Japan came over to America to give a speech at his new factory. His English wasn’t great, so he spoke, and the translator spoke to everyone.

Well at one point he went on about thanking local government officials, and that he would be sure to give them gifts for approving the project.

The translator wisely left that part out.

Confused, the CEO later asked why, then was shocked to learn that bribery is a bad thing in America.

Google Fu is weak, so haven’t been able to find the original source. (May have been a Japanese language book)

> bribery is a bad thing in America

Well. At least openly talking about it.

Pretending it doesn't work in Americaa is ostrich syndrome. Just the first google result to prove my point. https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-10-22/tr...

That doesn't scream "real" to me. Bribery is illegal in Japan. Thats why there is informal "gift giving"

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.

That is illegal according to US law. At my company, we are explicitly taught the opposite: paying "facilitation fees" is prohibited and illegal and that the employer will fire you and throw you under the bus if they find out you did so. They explicitly mention that this is not allowed even if it is the norm in the country in which you are doing business.

I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad.

Whether it's legal or illegal is almost aside the point, someone can choose between either breaking some arcane, unenforced US law, or potentially spending months/years in some hellhole of a third-world jail or prison while the Embassy slowly negotiates a release. And in some places, that's assuming someone doesn't just "disappear" or get robbed and shot on the spot.

It'd often be better to get fired and federally charged than to risk what your company advocates. In a worst case scenario, at least you know what you're getting, at least you'll have competent legal defense, and at least there will be a high -- virtually unprovable -- standard of evidence required for a federal jury to indict.

Every Fortune 100 company I've worked for has annual training that stresses the companies no-bribes no matter the reason policy.

Then we get pulled over in Mexico with a VP with us and it's a totally different reality on the ground.

The company doesn’t want you to not pay bribes — they just want to be able to say that they told you not to if you get caught.

So there's a difference between paying off the cop for a speeding ticket, and bribing the Minister of Resources for a contract.

Most companies want you to pay the cop to not take you to jail on fake charges.

The don't want you to pay the M. Resources (or at least not officially).

International Conglomerates keep 'Sunshine Funds' - i.e. money off the regular books in overseas accounts for this activity.

It's part of doing business in 1/2 the countries around the world, literally impossible to do business without it.

> I have never heard of a major company that didn't advise its employees to pay bribes abroad.

That would be conspiracy. No, absolutely this does not happen. Now, at the micro level it does happen that individual executives rope their employees in to fraud at their direction. But absoutely no "company" anywhere "advises" its employees to pay bribes as a matter of policy.

I think most companies would prefer their employees not go missing in some African hellhole or get incarcerated on bullshit charges wherever.

There's little difference between bribes and highway banditry in some places, and not playing along will very likely not end well for you.

Recourse in cases of abuses of power is already hit-and-miss in so-called "civilized" countries. I wouldn't count on it in countries that can't even agree on who's in charge somewhere.

You are entirely incorrect. One of the largest mining, minerals and petroleum companies in Australia has it right there in the employee handbook sitting on your desk on Day One.

So lets dial back the absolutes, huh?

Yes, this happens frequently. They are termed "facilitation payments" rather than bribes, they are budgeted and accounted for as expenses, and the official direction of briefing materials at at least three Fortune 100 companies (that I know of) directs people to pay them.

There's a difference between a bribe to win a contract or similar vs. the case where you feel in danger - e.g. you come across a roadblock in rural Mexico and an armed official wants a "clear up your paperwork" payoff to let you pass. That's the scenario the training covers.

Exactly, and it's clearly permitted to pay in that case because being able to travel involves routine govt action. I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.

> routine govt action

Like issuing a concealed-carry permit to a non-felon ex-Navy corporate executive.

OP describes a ransom, not a bribe. Charge the govt official who demanded the ransom, not the citizen entrapped in the scheme.

I have no idea where this legal advice is coming from.

From the usual IANAL crowd: "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true."

And if you're an actual lawyer, internet rules dictate that anything you know is trumped by a Wikipedia link.

I have seen both in training, but in different contexts.

jbuzbee is referring to international travel training you go through if you apply to travel to/through a "red"/"restricted" country. They are not referring to the generic "don't take a bribe for a contract" training.

IANAL, but I think a general rule of thumb is: will this bribe get me out being detained against my will (or worse) for doing nothing wrong? If yes, then it's ok. But: if I don't pay this bribe, the only consequence will be that my company doesn't win this contract -- that's not an ok bribe to pay.

> That is illegal according to US law.

Not always. If the local laws don't classify it legally as bribe you can pay it and even claim it on your taxes as cost of doing business.

This is incorrect. It's classified as a "grease payment", not a bribe. It's explicitly allowed under the FCPA.

"That is illegal according to US law."

Can I ask if you are an attorney - because this is absolutely 100% false. You are spreading misinformation here.

If your employer fires you for paying a facilitation fee to advance a routine govt action or travel then you should absolutely sue them.

> The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 is a United States federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens and entities from bribing foreign government officials to benefit their business interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

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 used to work for a company with a similar policy and training. "Airport tax" was how it was expensed, even if you weren't flying.

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).

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

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.

Wow, TIL.

You are spreading misinformation here.

In many countries everyone has to pay a facilitation fee (aka bribe) for routine govt actions.

These are for things like:

obtaining permits, licenses, or other official documents to qualify a person to do business in a foreign country; processing governmental papers, such as visas and work orders; providing police protection, mail pickup and delivery, or scheduling inspections associated with contract performance or inspections related to transit of goods across country; providing phone service, power and water supply, loading and unloading cargo, or protecting perishable products or commodities from deterioration; etc

How in the WORLD to folks giving legal advice here not have even this basic understanding of the law?

I acknowledged that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25193691. I never claimed I was giving legal advice.

But also, it seems like it's a bit of a grey area:

"As a general principle of the Foreign Corrupt Practises Act (FCPA), in the United States, firms and businesses in the US are prohibited from making any payments to foreign officials for routine governmental action. However, any payment that does not effect the decision of the foreign official is not considered a bribe. For example, a businessman in the States may make a payment to a government official to expedite a deal or transaction. Such a payment is considered a grease payment (and not a bribe), which is lawful under FCPA.

In this regard, it becomes necessary to understand when an amount paid turns from a grease payment to a bribe, which is illegal under law. This is a grey area under the law which is still to be clarified. There are numerous factors that could play a role in demarcation between the two, which include: the amount of payment, the frequency of the payment, the status/level of the foreign official to whom the payment has been made, the outcome of the case regarding which the payment was made, etc."[1]

The training at my company is pretty strict about never making any "grease payments", so certainly there's some doubt.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act#...

My company training also states that in situations where you are in possible danger, you should pay the bribe and then document and report it (with the company). For instance, you and a co-worker is in a car accident, you are fine, but your co-worker has a broken leg, you go with your co-worker to the hospital, upon arriving at the hospital you are told the doctor has gone home for the day, but for the right price, someone might be able to get him/her back. There is a "Safe Harbor" exception in these cases, however you must document and report.

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.

I had corporate training, annually, that said to do the exact opposite. We were not even allowed to give or accept innocuous gifts like tickets to a game without getting it approved by our legal department.

That's an entirely different class of bribe. There is no personal threat to you there. In some parts of the world, your livelihood, if not life, may be threatened.

"Call Legal if the police officer in Nicaragua is threatening to throw you in jail without arrest until you give him cash" is a reasonably sure way to put yourself at further risk/in grave peril.

If the gift is to secure business this is likely true especially if the business relates to some govt or official of another country. Very strict there - you can't pay a bribe to get business or as part of business development.

However, if you need to pay a "facilitation fee" to exit the country (called routine govt action) that is not about securing business or getting a competitive advantage such as a customs waiver, then paying the fee may be permitted (for a number of reasons).

What I think US folks don't realize is some dept's overseas basically pay their staff through these unofficial fees, they set some rates for service, but nothing goes through treasury and no enabling legislation exists. But they also don't get money from their treasury to operate (or its stolen by folks above them) so that's how they keep operating.

It isn't going to be taught unless you are going to be doing business in a country where it is the unavoidable norm with the people who are known fordoing it. Otherwise you will be trained to not pay bribes.

I have it on good authority that all apple employees are trained to not pay any kind of bribes. Didn't realize that training would need to be applied in the states tho

That's bad training. If they are stuck in a country because they won't pay the $20 exit fee because authorizing legislation was not properly adopted, then apple are idiots.

It will take one person dying because of this policy for apple to be sued to hell and back.

Campaign contribution, lobbying fees, consultants fees...

Tomato, tohmahtoh

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?

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.

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.

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.

Is it ‘Apple’ or is it the head of security though?

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.

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.

I feel like this thread went a bit south... the second half of my comment starts with:

>> But this isn't that.

That’s a little dramatic.

It's normal in CA because that is what elites do, often. They pay bribes to obtain general privileges of the public that are being withheld. Similar to the college admissions scandal. For CCW permits this has been an open secret in some jurisdictions for decades. Pay to play is elitist, classist, and hopefully they will be convicted for doing it.

The mistake they made was bribing individuals instead of making a sizable donation to the department and then casually chatting up the brass at a heavily sponsored fundraising event, over a few glasses of wine, about how frustrating the delays have become for everyone.

This sort of thing won't ever stop because of a few convictions, same deal with the college admissions scandal. It just raises the price.

Unfortunately, not only is it explicable, its common practice. Just a few years ago in NYC some of the highest ranking police officers in the city along with members of the prosecutors office were involved in a very similar scheme where they were selling gun permits (which are very difficult to get in NYC) to Orthodox Jews. To make things worse, the political connections of those involved in this massive crime allowed their names to be mostly excised from the reporting of this story in a variety of news outlets despite the case being covered for more than a year.

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/04/25/nypd-gun-license-bri...

I had to pay two bribes (200 USD, then another 300 USD) to Cancun police to get a friend out of jail so he could make his flight home. They asked when his flight was (~3 days later), then said they'd hold him until the day after the flight unless I paid up. Definitely felt more like a ransom than a bribe in that I didn't really have a choice not to pay.

I can definitely see how some people get suckered into bribes sometimes (especially with armed, intimidating police), but it doesn't seem like that is the case here.

I used to work in emergency assistance (think travel insurance claims) and any job that took you to a number of countries in SEA meant you took $500 to $1000 USD for bribing officials for the sole purpose of retrieving passports.

I agree but I want to point out it's actually worse than you make it sound. One of the indicted officers is second in command in Santa Clara County!

> A high-level exec at one of the world's most powerful companies paying off a local LEO for a permit instead of, IDK, contacting the State or the Feds, is beyond inexplicable.

The State or the Feds don't issue CCWs in California. Chief local law enforcement officers only, which means sheriffs and police chiefs.

>> A high-level exec at one of the world's most powerful companies paying off a local LEO for a permit instead of, IDK, contacting the State or the Feds, is beyond inexplicable.

> The State or the Feds don't issue CCWs in California. Chief local law enforcement officers only, which means sheriffs and police chiefs.

No, but they do investigate other LEO agencies for corruption. See: the article.

Right, and how long is that investigation going to take.

Meanwhile Apple is short dozens of security guards to have a full detail necessary to protect the lives and wellbeing of the highest ranking executives in the country.

The head of security at Apple is charged with protecting the lives and wellbeing of the top execs.

He performed exactly as the incentive structure recommends.

The crime is bribery, which determines the jurisdiction is federal.

Which laws were being overlooked by the bribe is not relevant.

Was going to upvote you, but I think even a private citizen of limited means failing to inform the Feds is an unforgivable offense against our society as well.

Knowing about public corruption, and not reporting it, is tantamount to racketeering. No matter how much power you have.

There are plenty of extenuating circumstances. For example, if you were a spouse of a corrupt law enforcement officer who's already facing domestic violence, would it be racketeering if you did not report your spouse's conduct? I am willing to bet it wouldn't (you have a credible fear of being assaulted, or worse yet, losing your life if you did so).

This is why things like anonymous tip lines and whistleblower laws exist. You are encouraged, in general, to report misconduct. But there are very specific situations where it's illegal to not report misconduct.

Spousal privilege would cover this specific example, I think? But the example could be shifted to adult dependent child, maybe, to create the same situation.

There was a time when reporting malfeasance to the federal authorities was the obvious right thing to do.

Now it is clear that reporting criminal acts to eg. the FBI is very risky; if the officer is politically aligned to the politically and societaly dominant party, and you are not, you're toast.

There isn't a politically and socially (?) dominant party in the US. There were recently bitterly and closely contested federal elections there.

downvote all throwaways >gun reference, or izzit

Local police can be extremely petty and extremely violent [1]. If a police officer told me he'd let me off for a bribe, I would probably pay it

That isn’t a bribe, it’s extortion.

As an aside it’s hilarious that Apple wants concealed carry permits for its staff while replacing the gun emoji with a water pistol. Just goes to show a corporation’s marketing is nothing to do with what it really believes.

I disagree. I dislike Apple's practices as much as anyone, but when the #2 person at the sheriff's office is the one soliciting the bribe, you have a problem with the police department that even Apple cannot be expected to fix.

You can argue that they should have gone straight to the DA, and you might even be right, but the only way for this problem to get fixed is by cleaning house at the police department, not by scolding Apple for trying to work with corrupt officials.

Keep in mind that it's incredibly rare for any DA to go against the police, so this case is already unusual. We'll have to wait and see if they actually have the evidence / wherewithal to see this one through rather than just settling out of court for a slap on the wrist.

Edit:

I actually agree with the comments suggesting that Apple and similar companies will learn from this experience and will use it as an example when trying to ensure that it doesn't happen again, and in that sense, it's important that they be punished too.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that, on a moral level, the police department comes off looking way worse than Apple here, and their punishment should be higher.

Police are given a special position in society where we essentially trust them to conduct themselves professionally and uphold the law fairly. When that trust is misplaced, the checks are slow and unreliable, and corrupt cops can cause a whole lot of mayhem while we're waiting. So if you're going to go after police corruption, you'd better hit hard. It's really, really bad for society to have police who are so comfortable asking for bribes this openly.

It's also bad for companies like Apple to feel like they can just pay the bribes to grease the wheels, but it's a different kind of bad. It's a "We should punish Apple to discourage a tragedy of the commons" kind of bad, while police openly asking for bribes is a "betraying the public trust" kind of bad.

Apple can absolutely be expected to fix it! They'll have someone trained to deal with this exact scenario, and employees will have been exposed to similar scenarios in mandatory anti-bribery training, and instructed exactly how to respond. In fact, I can guarantee this is gonna become a textbook example that all other companies are gonna be using in their training going forward. Bribery is a big deal for companies on this level, especially those teetering in the world of luxury like Apple is.

NO - these aren't workplace permits, they are personal licenses for the employees. They can already carry guns on their building grounds without a permit. The company is stepping in on behalf of their employees for to get these permits issued to them as individuals, so Apple's willingness to participate in the bribery is on the company. I do agree that the police have done the far greater crime in the abuse of their authority. No one really cared when the only permit issued by the city of Oakland was to Jerry Brown's personal assistant Jacques.

How do you know Apple was stepping in on behalf of employees?

It sounds like it was the Employees alone.

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

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

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

Why do Apple guards need to carry guns in the first place? Those guards should just be monitoring and alerting real law enforcement if a break-in happens. If someone goes postal, then I guess there should be several normal folks at Apple already carrying and able to protect the general public.

> If someone goes postal, then I guess there should be several normal folks at Apple already carrying and able to protect the general public.

So your solution is other, probably lesser-trained, individual Apple employees should be concealed-carrying so they can respond to a workplace shooting? Let's ignore that Apple probably doesn't allow this in the first place but even if they did I would not want to work in an environment where my coworkers were walking around with guns all the time. I have no problem with guns or CCW but in the workplace is a different story for me.

Yeah, when you put it that way...

Then help me understand. You have a shooting on the Apple campus, your ideal response is...? From your previous comment it sounds like you expected Apple employees who have their CCW and are carrying to handle it, was I mistaken?

In theory that could be a scalable approach. Citizens taking command and you will eventually have more armed people on Apple campus. But I tend to agree with your argument now. People just aren't trained for it.

Esp. because the story continues with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's office extorting other bribes from other parties.

They didn't even touch the Sheriff.

> Sheriff Laurie Smith, who has the authority to issue CCW permits, has not been charged with a crime.

Either i. the sheriff knew about/was in on this scheme and must be put in prison or ii. the sheriff didn't know about how her number two was soliciting bribes using her authority to grant/deny licenses and must resign because that is just gross negligence.

Which one is it?

In another incident, Sung “extracted” a promise from Chadha for $6,000 worth of luxury box suites at a San Jose Sharks game on Valentine’s Day, 2019, before issuing Chadha a CCW permit, Rosen said.

“Sheriff Laurie Smith’s family members and some of her biggest supporters held a celebration of her reelection as sheriff in Chadha’s suite,” Rosen said.

She's definitely not painted in a good light, that's for sure.

The sheriff's have been very crafty to not generate any evidence of wrongdoing. Unless one of her direct reports decides to turn against her and testify there will be no evidence that she ever directly communicated the monetary requirements to get a permit. Prior to this it has largely been indirect evidence used to probe CCW issuance, looking at the correlation of donations to permits being issued and non-donors getting denied permits. Sheriffs have even quashed that in that many won't readily give out or accept the paperwork to apply for a permit so there is never a record of a denial that is subject to sunshine laws. If you keep it verbal, there is no evidence if no one will testify.

It simply may be that they don't have enough evidence in this instance to charge the sheriff.

Sadly you can't force anybody to resign for gross negligence, even if it was true.

Punishing Apple is absolutely part of the fix. It gives all future, um, victims more incentive to not play along and increases the chances that future extortion will be exposed.

Don't go to the DA - they work with these people. Go to the feds since this violation of your rights is being committed under the color of law.

California is a may issue state, the sheriff's office can decline to issue a permit for any reason. Soliciting the bribe is illegal for other reasons, but failing to issue the permit is not a rights violation under California law.

...any legal reason...

Actually, denying the permit via an illegal action (requesting a bribe) is not a lawful denial and would result in the violation of your equal protection rights.

They do not have to provide the reason. Does it matter if the real reason is illegal?

If they solicit a bribe, one would reasonably assume that a failure to pay would result in a denial. If you have a recording of that, then you could provide probable cause that it was illegal.

If you weren't propositioned with a bribe, then true, it wouldn't be apparent why you were denied.

California is a two-party consent state. It's safe to assume a LEO soliciting a bribe would not also consent to having that solicitation recorded. So the only way you are getting that recording is illegally. Depending on how you record them, you could be facing several charges yourself and there's no guarantee that anything will come of it for a variety of reasons. You might even be caught doing it, which could be disastrous. In short, it's a pretty big gamble.

If you don't trust the locals (DA), then go to the FBI. They are setup to deal with this. You don't pay the bribe.

Keep in mind that it's incredibly rare for any DA to go against the police, so this case is already unusual. We'll have to wait and see if they actually have the evidence / wherewithal to see this one through rather than just settling out of court for a slap on the wrist.

Which raises the question, why did it happen this time?

My best guess is that the Santa Clara DA did the math, said, "I'm in a liberal part of a liberal state where people overwhelmingly support BLM and distrust the police. How can I best generate some positive publicity for myself?"

The concealed permits mess has been well-known for ages. So it wasn't a question of the DA having just learned about it and becoming shocked. And going to the Feds wouldn't have helped much since they don't care too much (else they would have acted ages ago). The question is why the DA decided to make an issue of it.

Honestly, I think it is because of the high level of the payments it could no longer be ignored, and the sheriff pissed off someone more powerful than them. Usually this stuff would entail a couple of thousand per individual, the whole process was based on insider networking/understanding, no explicit quid pro quo, and the money was slated to an organization that was set up to receive funds for other legitimate purposes so there is some level of transparency. Based on the article, Santa Clara had taken this to a whole new level with what was being demanded and the demands were explicit.

You won't be able to convince me that Apple could not have brought this to light in some way. They definitely share a hefty part of the blame.

"The biggest company in the world vs. County Sheriff" and you think Apple had no other options?

Baloney. The whole reason that laws exist to punish the person paying the bribe, even if the bribe was originally solicited by an official, is to force that person to bring it to higher authorities, i.e. the FBI.

This type of corruption is even more endemic in other countries and I'm sure many companies would find it easier to just pay the bribe than comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but that's why the act was written in the first place.

Agree. Also Apple security are in a long term beneficiary position with any given law enforcement entity, especially one which effectively controls the limits of Apple's personal security measures wrt firearms.

To me this seems it would make the "or else" really difficult to think past. What can they do? If they detonate the leadership structure of some department by going on the offense, what is the likelihood they hurt their own ability to work with LEO types in the future? That would be a really hard position. But maybe there are details we just don't have here.

I don't see any Apple apologists here in the comments. Who are you referring to?

All I see is the fact that the Apple employee didn't initiate the bribe, the sheriff's office demanded it (extorted it) and the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe.

At the end of the day it's bribery so of course the employee deserves to be charged (and Apple if it approved it in any way), but the sheriff's office officials deserve much harsher punishment quite clearly.

"the employee was put in the unfortunate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe"

...or immediately going to the FBI.

These permits in CA are may-issue, not shall-issue. The sheriff can deny for any reason (of course they aren't supposed to ask for a bribe).

Why give police the power to decide these permits? Power corrupts

> (of course they aren't supposed to ask for a bribe)

Oh they just weren't "supposed" to ask for bribes. Nothing illegal here, just a honest guy going above and beyond on his job to keep America safe.

May-issue doesn't legalize bribery. See: the indictment.

Soliciting bribes is explicitly against the law, and that has nothing to do with "may" vs "shall" issue.

Soooo extremely poor judgement?

There are two categories of bribes.

If you bribe someone to get something that you're not qualified for, that is clearly wrong on the part of both the applicant and the permit approver.

But if you're being denied something you should get, unless you bribe them, I am more sympathetic to the applicant.

the employee was put in the unfortunate immediate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe

He was the chief security officer of the biggest company in the world. He absolutely had many other options.

I don't see any Apple apologists here in the comments. Who are you referring to?

You do realize that your comment here is exactly what "apologists" means, right?

> He absolutely had many other options.

The only legal option I can see is "move out of CA", which probably means get another job. Which, you know, people sometimes do if they feel strongly about the right to carry, but likely wasn't in his set of considered options.

> He was the chief security officer of the biggest company in the world.

Oh, you're suggesting he use Apple to, uh, "lean on" the sheriff? That seems much worse. One might even hope that was not one of his possible options, even as CSO...

> The only legal option I can see is "move out of CA", which probably means get another job. Which, you know, people sometimes do if they feel strongly about the right to carry, but likely wasn't in his set of considered options.

You didn't consider "report it to the DA, state police, or FBI" as an option?

> Oh, you're suggesting he use Apple to, uh, "lean on" the sheriff? That seems much worse. One might even hope that was not one of his possible options, even as CSO...

I absolutely did not read this in the GP's post. Whether it is what he meant or not, it's an ungenerous take. A more generous take is that with the resources available to him, reporting a bribe solicitation to the appropriate authorities is much less risky than it would be for (say) a random citizen of San Jose.

> The only legal option I can see is "move out of CA", which probably means get another job.

How could that possibly be the only option?

Sue the sheriff's department is an obvious one, as is contact the FBI.

> Oh, you're suggesting he use Apple to, uh, "lean on" the sheriff? That seems much worse. One might even hope that was not one of his possible options, even as CSO

What?

No of course not.

Off the top of my head:

* Get Apple's lawyers advice (which would not be "pay an illegal bribe")

* FBI

After going through the process of building a house in CA, I believe we should decriminalize offering of bribes, but not solicitation of bribes.

$100K’s of dollars (>> 10% of the total project cost) have been extracted from us by various bureaucratic processes that are outside what is explicitly specified by the law.

I am confident that this would not have happened if we were well politically connected, and had friends that worked at PG&E.

I honestly don’t know if we were “just supposed to know” that we needed to make some specific charitable or political donation or something like that, because no one has explicitly solicited a bribe from us.

If it were legal to offer bribes, I could go online, and search for information on who to pay off, and to what ends.

Even better, California could fix the law to eliminate these gray areas. In the Apple case, they could move from “may issue” to “shall issue”.

In my case, there could be bounds on permit review durations, and also the cost / benefit of “environmental” regulations: if some ask is too expensive homeowners could “buy credits” by doing something else that would be more effective for the same amount of money.

To be clear, the money they extracted from us for “the environment” will substantially increase our carbon footprint, impact on local wildlife and on the watershed — we planned to voluntarily spend that money to mitigate those impacts because we’re extremely concerned about the environment. Now, we’ve been forced to waste it in low impact ways. I’m not upset that we were forced to spend the money. I’m upset it was wasted.

I live in a developing country with a ton of bribery that is way, way down the Transparency International rankings.

Your ideas come across as pretty naive and out of touch with how bribery works in the real world. Which is okay, not everyone is an expert on everything. But your comment would come across a lot better if you had used some tentative language instead of definitive language on a topic it is clear you don't know much about in the real world.

Bribes are rarely solicited in the real world, so that's the first place you theory falls down. I've only rarely had someone say something that could even vaguely be construed as soliciting a bribe. They aren't dumb, after all. Instead what usually happens is you get a run-around for unspecified reasons until you offer the bribe. You submit the paperwork and they tell you it is filled in incorrectly but don't tell you what part is wrong or how to fill it in correctly. The nurse only checks on you once a day until you give her an envelope of cash. The accountants auditing your books ask for receipts of every single everything until take them to dinner and offer them a present for all the hard work they've done so far. The fire department finds all kinds of ways to not certify your new office for occupancy until you give them some "coffee money".

The second problem with you theory of bribery is the offering bribes changes the structure of compensation dramatically. The expectation of receiving bribes becomes part of the expected total compensation for a position. But this gray money -- the delta between official compensation and bribes -- becomes a revenue stream that everyone above you on the hierarchy can and will tap into.

In practice this means you have to pay a huge bribe to get any job. Where I live, to get a job as a police officer, or a nurse, or a flight attendant, you have to pay a bribe to whoever is hiring. Not a small bribe. Like a year of salary. Which means either you come from a family rich enough to have that kind of money laying around or borrow money from a money-lender.

How do you get the money to pay back the money-lender? By taking bribes, of course.

Your boss knows approximately how much you're making in bribes each month and will expect you to pass it along every month. After all, he borrowed a ton of money to pay a bribe to get his promotion and needs to pay off that debt.

And if you're complaining about >10% of the total project cost going to bureaucratic processes, your idea would result in 30% or more of the total project cost going to bribery. Since that's exactly what happens here.

I second this description. Bribery and corruption in Vietnam is endemic. A new employee gets a job by paying their first year’s salary. That means they have to collect bribes to survive. After their first year collecting bribes, they habit is engrained.

Edit: I just noticed you are also in Vietnam. So sad for such an otherwise lovely place.

If people paying had no legal incentive to keep their bribe private after the fact, then accepting a bribe would be much riskier than it currently is in the US.

Once it became common knowledge that some officials were extracting bribes, it would be simple to jail them.

After all, if I paid a bribe, and it was legal to pay it, but illegal to receive it, I’d certainly document the payment as well as I could.

After the house was built, you can bet I’d try to recoup my funds, and also figuratively burn the county office to the ground by pursuing every option I could in the press and in court.

I don’t think I’m naive as you think. The officials in this area behave exactly as you describe. The difference in my situation is that, if there was concrete evidence of bribery at the planning office, it would be prosecuted and it would make headlines (just as the bribery case in the article did.)

Local governments that withhold building permits and corruption at PG&E have become so politically contentious that the state government has had to repeatedly intervene.

> I believe we should decriminalize offering of bribes

I too would like to erode confidence in our public servants.

It's become far too difficult for public servants to extort me, something needs to change.

Can you be more specific? The experience I had with house construction permitting in a big California city was completely above-the-table and reasonable.

It looks like the iPads were for the department, not the guy's personal use. It's a little bit dubious given that it's the same agency asking for and receiving the benefit, but money is fungible. Suppose the Sheriff had insisted on iPads for some other department, like the schools.

Governments do stuff like this all the time. In fact constituents get mad when they don't. The Planning Commission is considered derelict in its duty if it just gives away a building permit without getting something good from the developer in return (park, street cleaning program, extra BMR units, promise to use union labor).

SFMTA considers corporate philanthropy, coverage of unprofitable neighborhoods, and low-income discount programs when deciding who gets the permit to run scooters in San Francisco.

If it is bribery when a government agency asks a permit applicant to spend a bit on the agency's mission, then there's a lot more to prosecute all over the Bay Area.

It's almost like the system of permits for concessions is actually a corrupting force in cities! In my city many development projects went ahead because of various promises (low income housing, cultural venues, etc) and the developer didn't follow through in any meaningful way - i.e. a theater was built, no shows ever took place there. Or low income housing was transitioned to market rate housing within 5 years.

But at least these things happened in public, through a semi-transparent process of development permits with public consultations. The process is semi-fixed, the incentives are off, but it's not a straight up bribe behind closed doors.

When it's the commissioners driving the negotiation, the sunlight angle is true. Often, though, it's the activist group which rallies speakers against the project and then negotiates with the developer privately. The developer makes a donation to the activist group, and then members appear at the next meeting to withdrawn their objection. I've seen the tail end of one of these in 3 or 4 of the ~25 planning meetings I've watched.

Issuing CCW permits isn't a negotiation of city land or development. It is literally a Driver's License for carrying a firearm in public. Should the DMV counter person get to haggle with every person trying to get a driver's license in the name of the public good?

Not against individuals, but against companies? Absolutely. There was a big push to do more "value capture" from the Big Tech commuter shuttle buses in exchange for permission to run on San Francisco streets. It was largely stymied by state law, which SF activists didn't quite have the momentum to change, but it was a big thing in local politics for a while.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco-accused-...

The problem with San Francisco’s “value capture” ideas as seen on 48hills.org is that they often want to capture the value of the choice that has positive externalities (e.g. riding a bus down highway 101, or building housing) while not capturing the value of the choice that has negative externaltities (e.g. driving a private vehicle, or underutilizing land during a housing shortage). This blind spot often undermines their self-proclaimed label of “Progressive”.

Ironically, the article also compares buses to a “$250,000 fee San Francisco charges taxi operators for a medallion”. That’s a payout to the previous owner with an initial 5% transfer tax, not a fee, and it was actually a big mistake for the city to have made it a payout rather than “value captured” rent to the city (which could be adjusted), since the city is being sued and is about to go to trial for it (https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CGC18565325).

Agree, and targeting a very small subset of companies would be a pretty hard bar to pass when they should be crafting laws that treat all commercial traffic fairly. I remember it all well, I follow bicycle and transportation stuff.

These are individual licenses, not corporate licenses.

Nooooo.

You’re making up stuff about things you don’t know about. Accepting gifts is always an issue in government, and often a serious crime for the employee, regardless of who benefits. Accepting or demanding compensation for official action is corruption, regardless of the beneficiary.

Negotiating public contracts, seeking public benefit, or enforcing requirements related to permitting is not bribery or corruption. You may not like poor people, public access to urban space, or union labor, but community standards based on law are not corruption.

Officials administrating the permitting process have discretion to act. The appointing authority ultimately controls them, and the people ultimately hold them accountable.

Go back to the original city council meeting where Jobs announces the new Apple headquarters. The council asks if they’ll be getting free Wi-Fi with the campus or anything. Not a straight up pay to play, but things like the above commenter described DO happen.

"Officials administrating the permitting process have discretion to act."

City councils are political bodies, and within their jurisdictions are the ultimate authority on what should and should not be allowed.

LEOs are employees of the state, and are meant to follow the dictates of the legislature or other political body that governs them.

If you want to negotiate a legitimate trade of public donation in exchange for a CCW, that needs to be done publicly through democratic and legal processes.

Go back to the recording of the meeting where the undersheriff asks for a large donation to the Sheriff's department to compare.

Better/cheaper municipal IT is the same kind of public benefit as more urban space or services for poor people. The sheriff's discretion over CCW is the same as the planning commission's discretion over construction.

I think both are slimy but neither are corruption, per se, both institutions are serving the public interest.

This is a California thing, or at the very least a rich city thing.

Where I live building permits are basically shall issue. They're happy to have the development.

Quid pro quo for CCW permits is definitely bribery. Yes, there is a lot of negotiation and back scratching in govt, and a lot of it is unethical and illegal as well.

> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period.

Apple or no Apple, no one in America should be deprived of their Constitutional rights. I'm more concerned that authoritarian states like California can get away with depriving the people of our explicit rights under American law than I am with people paying bribes just to exercise those rights.

Apple leaders have spoken publicly in favor of such deprivations. It would be interesting to check whether the company itself has made contributions to that cause under the guise of charity.

Fair enough. It is their right. The nature of rights being what they are, the Apple execs can publicly call for eradication of others' rights and the would-be gun owners can get their guns without each other's approval, unless very exacting political-legal hurdles were overcome.

Was there any indication that one of these security personnel failed a background check? Used a straw purchaser or gun show loophole? Had friends and family worried about what he planned to do? Had an active domestic violence case?

Since when was CCW a Constitutional right? You don't need one to carry.

Unless your state is open carry you do in fact need a permit to carry in public. In fact, some open carry states (ex Texas) still require a permit to do so.

I'm always frustrated but amused at how uninformed many of my fellow Americans are about the gun laws here (frequently it's the ones pushing for additional laws).

Ok, you appear to be right about California. In my defense, I live elsewhere.

One of the minor pitfalls of Federalism- I can't keep track of the laws in all 50 states.

The key language from the courts is "reasonable regulation" on the use of firearms. That's a bit vague, but "we've created a process to let you concealed carry, but we won't actually issue a permit to anyone" pretty obviously fails the "reasonableness" test. If the restriction was that concealed carry is flat out illegal, that might actually be more legally tenable than this discretionary nonsense in places like the Bay Area. Of course, CCW regulations that are clearly limited to safety and competence with firearms and limit the discretion of issuing officials are almost certainly compatible with the Constitution.

Just for the sake of comparison, the rule that was struck down in DC v. Heller (which firmly established that the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defense, subject to reasonable regulation by the state) required gun owners to keep their weapons "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" at all times.

You definitely need a ccw to open carry a loaded firearm in many jurisdictions

25 states are unrestricted plus 6 which may have local restrictions. Over 30 for rifles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_Sta...

What is unconstitutional about prosecuting people of crimes that they commit by bribing officials?

I’m not following your logic.

Bay Area Sheriffs withhold a constitutional right in the issuance of permits, which results in something of value being created that they can hold for political or financial favor.

Even if you disagree with concealed carry, 2/3 of the counties in CA will issue you a permit no problem that allows you to carry statewide. There is no reasonable argument for not issuing permits here.

I totally agree with you, but I think the clear implication of baryphonic's comment is that the State of CA was being "authoritarian" here by denying the permit, as opposed to the sheriffs dept. Which, I'd point out, doesn't make much sense given that it is in fact the State of California which is bringing the charges against these people in the sheriffs dept for demanding bribes in exchange for a constitutionally protected government service.

He's referring to the Right to Keep and Bear arms only being recognized in those who can afford to bribe the local Sheriff.

California's gun laws are pretty blatantly unconstitutional, even without the bribery.

California has the most stringent gun laws but also the a lowest gun violence death rate per capita.

More people were allowed to pursue the "life" option in the Declaration of Independence. The first item of unalienable rights our forefathers stated all people had.

What do you do when two rights directly infringe upon eachother?

California has the 7th lowest gun death rate.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/...

California is 23rd in homicide rate.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality...

26th in homicide according to wikipedia [0] but what is your point?

The 'typical' murder involves people that know each other and has a motive. Loose firearm regulations enable mass shootings [1][2] which are more indiscriminate.

Everyone has the right to bear arms but what do we do when that infringes on other peoples right to life? I think it's a cogent question.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicid...

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser-a-states-gun-laws-the...

[2] https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

The lowest? I checked wikipedia and was able to find that Arizona had a 30% lower rate in 2016 and is a "shall issue" state.

2013 rates age adjusted[0], Arizona had a higher per capita death rate at 14.1 vs 7.7 with California.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...

I would agree if California was a shall-issue state for CCW, but it's a may-issue state. Essentially it's arbitrarily up to the sheriffs department if you can get a CCW.

Personally, I chose to live in shall-issue states.

The sheriff's department wasn't allowed to refuse the permit for this reason, as evidenced by the fact that the officials involved are also being criminally charged for the bribery scheme.

They're being charged because it looks like they accepted a bribe, not because they refused a permit. If they hadn't paid there'd be nothing to charge them with.

For all the people saying - ‘he should have gone to the FBI’ this is a key point.

If he didn’t pay the bribe there would have been nothing to report.

I can't see how any may-issue schemes are legal when it comes to equal protection rights.

If may-issue schemes are applied in a way that evaluates the individual case on neutral and non-discriminatory criteria, even if a subjective element of judgment exists, it certainly can comply with equal protection rights.

If they're applied in an unequal way, of course that's different.

There's no such thing as a non-discriminatory may-issue scheme. They are by definition discriminatory.

If the criteria isn't codified, then how can it be equally applied?

Courts are very familiar with adjudicating such ambiguity and have been throughout history. They simply have to avoid discriminating in ways that violate the law, but other forms of subjectivity.

As a stupid but illustrative hypothetical example, if the official decides each morning whether he will approve all CCW applications he sees that day or none of them based on a die roll before leaving home, and then unilaterally changes it a month later to go based on whether the last digit of the local CBS affiliate's high temperature forecast from the 7am newscast is odd or even, these stupid rules and rule changes would be completely compliant with the equal protection clause.

That is just bullshit. May issue does not mean may according to bribe.

How do you explain denials in a may-issue system if the individual meets statutory requirements?

It's just like employment discrimination. In an at-will-employment jurisdiction, my boss is free to arbitrarily fire me, but cannot specifically fire me for e.g. my race.

(How do you tell the difference? Well, as in this case, usually people leave some sort of evidence, and the legal system has a process for demanding evidence and evaluating it. It's not perfect, but it's certainly not unenforceable.)

You’ve got it backwards. Instances where they do leave evidence are the exception, not the norm. Which is why the anti discrimination laws are somewhat toothless and the government tries to look for statistical evidence of discrimination.

Does the driving test requirement to receive a driver’s license mean that driver’s licenses are may-issue?

Nope, that's also shall-issue in most states. If you meet the statutory requirements (passing the test, age, etc), then they must issue the license.

> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period.

This is absolutely true. Soliciting a bribe, as a public official, however, is a much (much!) worse crime. And that seems to be what happened here.

Absent more detail, I think I'm willing to buy that Moyer was just a normal corporate executive faced with trying to work around a corrupt bureaucracy. But yeah, more detail could change that.

> Bribing public officials is a crime, period.

In some countries, seeking bribes is a crime, but giving in to a demand for bribe is not. That seems fairer. When you became a public official you agreed to perform your job dutifully. If a public official refuses to perform his job unless a citizen provides him with a bribe, then it seems like the citizen was forced into bribery by the public official. How is it then fair to hold the hapless citizen responsible for the crime?

I think the idea is not to hold the hapless citizen responsible; instead you want to force the hapless citizen to report the solicitation.

I also pay bribes when I feel threatened for my safety and the person i’m talking to has the tools i need for my safety and demands rent.

The only people in the wrong here are the police .

We are talking about a high-ranking Apple executive who needed concealed carry permits. This guy literally runs a private global army. Let's not pretend he was scared for his life. He just chose to do what was easy for himself and the company (pay some pocket change) rather than take any possible legal route.

He was in charge of the executive protection team. They are armed because leaders of well known companies face constant threats and are kidnapping targets (Apple would obviously pay countless sums to get Tim Cook back safely for example).

The Bay Area and New York are notorious for withholding permits because it creates artificial scarcity, and off-duty cops are the only ones able to fill the demand.

That's not what happened here though, there's no competing off duty cops protecting Apple's executives.

That's exactly what's happening. Just because Apple/the head of security doesn't want to pay off duty/retired police who have CCW permits because of their LEO jobs, it doesn't mean that isn't completely relevant to the CCW issuance situation.

Hmm. From the article this wasn't a payment of cash to an official. It was a donation in kind to the police dept. I don't know any more than is reported in the article but I will say that some years ago I was subject to a similar "offer". Much smaller in scope, and the official wasn't in law enforcement, but similar enough in essence. At the time I thought it a little weird but also assumed "that must be how things work here". I passed because the cost wasn't worth the benefit to me. I certainly did not think that I should go inform the police that this official had solicited a bribe.

As a huge fan (with ink on my skin since 2000) and as a former employee, I’m deeply disappointed. I’m sad for the company’s employees who have to live with guilt by association. I know that the people there believe in what they do and their work has been tainted. For shame.

Slightly offhand, I wonder how this will alter Apple’s security approach down the line. Not whether they believe in security, but the right road to get there if there’s a shakeup.

Being an Apple apologist is one thing but being an apologist for corrupt government officials is reprehensible. I side with the underdog in this case.

Both can be bad you know.

Indeed. When Apple become extortionist you go to another handset maker, when the government becomes extortionist you either pay or go to jail. There is a scale of Evil.

The fact that a bribe is necessary is the problem. The second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and the “may issue” vs “shall issue” permitting process is a direct affront to that right. Anyone that meets the legal requirements for a permit should be entitled to one. It shouldn’t be up to the discretion of a public official to anoint chosen ones based on their own personal feelings. Either requirements are met or not. But a public official shouldn’t be evaluating “need.” That’s not the Jon of the public official. That would be like a public official deciding one media outlet should be allowed to publish and another one denied. Equal protection is violated. Two people with identically clean backgrounds should not have one person awarded a permit and another denied. To get a drivers license, you don’t have to prove a need to drive: you pass the test and pay the fee and you are good. And unlike driving, keeping and bearing a firearm is constitutionally protected.

> It also doesn't matter who initiated the bribe.

Well, it does make a legal difference as entrapment would invalidate the legal case against him. (I have no evidence this is what happened here--just pointing out a poor choice of words!)

If California had reasonable laws around guns then they could do this stuff completely legally. You don't need apologism to protest the ridiculousness of this.

>It also doesn't matter who initiated the bribe.

What a silly thing to say.

Whether or not you initiated a bribe does not defend your participation in it. True

But ignoring the balance of power for, what appears to be, a reason to hate on Apple is just daft. Shockingly so.

A police offer demanding a bribe is not the same as a police officer accepting one. Just ignores the entire social dynamic of humans. Power dynamics are the central theme of human relationships. This is just a weird form of victim blaming, though not for a moment am I suggesting anyone is innocent here.

The Undersheriff should be crucified as a means of deterrence. You can't have positions of power occupied by those seeking to corrupt them. Which, I think, is not far off your argument, you just want to seem to needlessly drag Apple into this.

They weren't involved, beyond their employee basically stealing their stock. Is that somehow their fault? Should we charge them with criminal negligence for trusting someone? That's not going to have long term consequences for whistleblowers at all

it's not clear exactly what happened in the article - did Moyer work w/ the sheriff's office to extort Apple for the permits?

Reminds me of the incidents with people working in security for other tech companies, e.g., Uber^1 and Ebay^2.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227437

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23537357

This was likely for Tim Cook's personal security detail.

Basically every high net worth or highly visible tech CEO has a PSD (really high end folks have a counter-kidnap team on standby).

It’s a reminder that most people think that as soon as the system isn’t fair or someone does something bad to you, it is now ethical for you to use any means to get what you think you deserve.

It's actually a reminder that most people think that when the state violates their fundamental rights they have a right to get their rights back by any means possible.

Why the company?

Seems like it was just this individual.

Indeed. I think this wasn’t a matter of Apple or the employee paying a bribe, but of the employee receiving one in exchange for stealing hardware from Apple.

I read the story as:

- Head of security team contacts police to get concealed carrying permits for his employees

- Police officer says “if Apple gives us 200 iPads, that can be arranged. On top of that, you’ll get $X”.

- Head of security team agrees, signs of for the Apple hardware, and receives a bribe.

If so, Apple was the only one paying, but the company probably wouldn’t have known about that (possibly, multiple employees would)

If this were the police asking for iPads in exchange for permits, I would call it extortion, not bribery.

> If so, Apple was the only one paying, but the company probably wouldn’t have known about that (possibly, multiple employees would)

If an Apple executive was the one running the entire thing, how is the argument that the company wasn't aware of it? What even is "the company" at this point?

That’s a gray area, but in this case (200 iPads worth about $75,000 versus a company that has a net income of over a hundred million a day, thousands of employees (even disregarding those working in their stores) and top-level execs that, probably, make over $75,000 net every week), I think it’s a safe bet it didn’t go really high up the chain.

Of course, that can change if it turns out Tim Cook knew about this. That would surprise me a lot, though.

Was it for the benefit of the company or individuals? Approved by the board?

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.

But it probably had no idea that it was part of a bribe. How could it?

This article discusses the two circumstances under which US states may attribute criminal liability to a corporation: https://law.jrank.org/pages/744/Corporate-Criminal-Responsib...

Either of these standards would probably apply to a head of security who commits the crime as part of seeking concealed carry permits for an Apple security team.

CCW is the wrong kind of permit for armed employment. There's a different kind for that. The CCWs would only benefit the individuals, not the company.

Who would have to know before you would consider "the company" as knowing it? This was a chief executive doing it

Head security guard is not exactly a ‘chief executive’.

I'd say if the company was benefiting instead of just the individuals.

> Why the company?

Because you don't just randomly cough up a couple hundred anything from a company like Apple without it appearing on the books somewhere.

If it didn't appear on the books anywhere, then it sounds like Apple gave this department a quite significant "petty cash" fund and used this guy and department to do unsavory things so that the higher-ups can have plausible deniability.

Yeah, the company needs to get hammered, too.

Most of these companies do have charity/donation programs. How do you tell which are legitimate vs a bribe like this?

A legitimate "charity/donation" request will get transferred to the "charity/donation" department with appropriate paperwork.

A bribe like this will get buried into somebody's "untracked cash" account.

The problem is that this is "Standard Operating Procedure" for "Security" departments as they're generally ex-police themselves. That's why they didn't think anything of it.

I didn't see the part about it being buried instead of through official channels. Did it have that in there?

The requested permits were for Apple's security team.

As a condition of employment, or personally?

Most states have separate licensing for armed employment.

I don't know if it's just a bribe either--who knows what they did to those iPads, I'm sure information from the police could be used for political gain.

Is it still a bribe when the public official initiates it? I hope they all get into trouble but I do wonder, when faced with a corrupt public official who is withholding government-provided services, at some point does that not simply become the necessary payment as opposed to a "bribe"?

It's always a bribe. In places without a fully-functional rule of law, it may also be the necessary payment (i.e., the payment of bribes may be expected to conduct business or get through a checkpoint or whatever), but it's still a bribe.

It's actually pretty common for bribes to be requested by the official - the first answer at https://www.quora.com/What-should-I-do-if-the-customs-office... has a description of how this sort of thing usually works.

It was be entrapment, but still a bribe. There are lots of cases like it.

> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here.

Really? HN has been a den of Apple, Microsoft, etc worship for a while now. In another thread on the frontpage, people are encouraging people to buy Apple TV. It's partly the social media PR teams these companies hire, it's the advertising and it's also the type of people HN attracts. It's sickening but what can you do.

yes; a forum for computer enthusiasts filled with people enthusiastic about computers.... what has this place come to indeed

No "computer enthusiast" is enthusiastic about apple. People who used apple products are generally laughed at by computer enthusiasts. Apple products are for non computer enthusiasts. Apple products are for sheep. Computer enthusiastics either build their own computer or buy cheap PCs and throw linux, bsd, etc on there.

> what has this place come to indeed

Indeed. And why a throwaway?

> yes; a forum for computer enthusiasts filled with people enthusiastic about computers.... what has this place come to indeed

Oh sure, there's 0 difference between proprietary black box software and free/libre open source... give me a break.

Tech's Great-Man theory has society idolizing Silicon Valley monopolizers:

"In the movie Steve Jobs, a character asks, “So how come 10 times in a day I read ‘Steve Jobs is a genius?’” The great man reputation that envelops Jobs is just part of a larger mythology of the role that Silicon Valley, and indeed the entire U.S. private sector, has played in technology innovation. We idolize tech entrepreneurs like Jobs, and credit them for most of the growth in our economy. But University of Sussex economist Mariana Mazzucato, who has just published a new U.S. edition of her book, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, makes a timely argument that it is the government, not venture capitalists and tech visionaries, that have been heroic.

“Every major technological change in recent years traces most of its funding back to the state,” says Mazzucato. Even “early stage” private-sector VCs come in much later, after the big breakthroughs have been made. For example, she notes, “The National Institutes of Health have spent almost a trillion dollars since their founding on the research that created both the pharmaceutical and the biotech sectors–with venture capitalists only entering biotech once the red carpet was laid down in the 1980s. We pretend that the government was at best just in the background creating the basic conditions (skills, infrastructure, basic science). But the truth is that the involvement required massive risk taking along the entire innovation chain: basic research, applied research and early stage financing of companies themselves.” The Silicon Valley VC model, which has typically dictated that financiers exit within 5 years or so, simply isn’t patient enough to create game changing innovation." [1]

[1] https://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/

I know this is a late response; but thank you for this comment it was very interesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com