Apple Security Chief Maintains Innocence After Bribery Charges (arstechnica.com) 71
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A grand jury in California's Santa Clara County has indicted Thomas Moyer, Apple's head of global security, for bribery. Moyer is accused of offering 200 iPads to the Santa County Sheriff's office in exchange for concealed carry permits for four Apple employees. Moyer's attorney says that he did nothing wrong, and notably Apple is standing behind its executive. "We expect all of our employees to conduct themselves with integrity," an Apple spokesperson said in a statement. "After learning of the allegations, we conducted a thorough internal investigation and found no wrongdoing."
Also indicted were two officials in the office of Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith. These officials are accused of soliciting the alleged bribe. California law gives sheriffs broad discretion to decide who gets permits to carry concealed weapons in the state. Smith has previously faced accusations that her office deliberately withheld permits to carry concealed weapons until applicants did favors for Smith. A June investigation by NBC Bay Area found that donors to Smith's re-election campaign were 14 times more likely to get concealed carry permits than those who didn't donate. A press release from Smith's office described the indictments as "a difficult time for our organization."
Jeff Rosen, the Santa Clara district attorney responsible for the indictments, said that the donation of 200 iPads was scuttled at the last minute after Rosen obtained a search warrant in the case. According to LinkedIn, Moyer is responsible for "strategic management of Apple's corporate and retail security, crisis management, executive protection, investigations and new product secrecy." While two individuals in Sheriff Smith's office were indicted, no charges have been filed against Smith herself. Rosen says the investigation is ongoing. A common prosecutorial strategy is to focus on lower-ranking employees first in order to pressure them to provide evidence against their boss.
Also indicted were two officials in the office of Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith. These officials are accused of soliciting the alleged bribe. California law gives sheriffs broad discretion to decide who gets permits to carry concealed weapons in the state. Smith has previously faced accusations that her office deliberately withheld permits to carry concealed weapons until applicants did favors for Smith. A June investigation by NBC Bay Area found that donors to Smith's re-election campaign were 14 times more likely to get concealed carry permits than those who didn't donate. A press release from Smith's office described the indictments as "a difficult time for our organization."
Jeff Rosen, the Santa Clara district attorney responsible for the indictments, said that the donation of 200 iPads was scuttled at the last minute after Rosen obtained a search warrant in the case. According to LinkedIn, Moyer is responsible for "strategic management of Apple's corporate and retail security, crisis management, executive protection, investigations and new product secrecy." While two individuals in Sheriff Smith's office were indicted, no charges have been filed against Smith herself. Rosen says the investigation is ongoing. A common prosecutorial strategy is to focus on lower-ranking employees first in order to pressure them to provide evidence against their boss.
How about more "Shall not be infringed..." (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no reason that a legally qualified citizen should have a problem getting a carry concealed license.
WTF is this sheriff giving qualified citizens a heard time about getting one in the first place?!?!?
The problem isn't bribery, it is the fscking sheriff holding out on qualified citizens....period.
What parts of shall not be infringed do they not get?
Re:How about more "Shall not be infringed..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that California does not require a license to acquire a firearm, merely to carry it concealed.
Keep and bear arms.
However, we all know the ACLU does not care about the First or Second amendments, hence they are doing nothing.
They seem to care slightly about the 1st, but I won't donate to them because they don't support the 2nd.
Re: (Score:3)
Californians must have state approval to buy ammunition and it can only be purchased throug an FFL.
The vast majority of States do not require background checks of ammunition purchasers nor are there Federal restrictions on person-to-person (i.e., fa
Re: (Score:3)
There's another plausible explanation, although I don't know if it's the case here.
Any elected official is accountable to the electorate, and maybe the electorate will not appreciate them issuing too many of these permits.
Re: (Score:2)
There's another plausible explanation, although I don't know if it's the case here.
Any elected official is accountable to the electorate, and maybe the electorate will not appreciate them issuing too many of these permits.
Every couple of years a California sheriff gets in trouble for selling concealed weapon permits, and it has been going on for at least the 3 or 4 decades that I have been aware of it.
Elected officials also need campaign donations.
Re: (Score:3)
You're half right, but actually it's (somehow) actually worse than that. It's "may issue" but the issuer is the county Sheriff. Outside of the urban counties, the sheriffs issue fairly freely, and the permit is valid statewide.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why shouldn't the sheriff be making it EASIER for all citizens, that can pass the background checks, and take the classes, etc for CCW to actually GET one?
California is a may issue state, where the local sheriff is given total discretion to approve the license. And while one can disagree on the sheriff's choices, she was elected by her constituents on a platform that included not issuing those licenses in most cases. It was an open secret in the region that this resulted in a pay-to-play exchange, where supporting the local sheriff was the way to get the license. The sheriff (and her deputy) have asserted their 5th amendment rights when asked about the sc
Re: (Score:2)
I ask the same exact question about voting all the time. Voting is just as basic a right as firearms, likely far more so. Yet many states go out of their way to make it harder to vote. When the post office is slow, many government officials want to throw the ballots away. Governments regularly remove many thousands of voters from the rolls despite knowing that many of them are likely valid.
We can quibble about how the CA concealed carry licensing works. But can we agree that a government official who a
Re: (Score:2)
What a bull-shit statement.
Absentee voting has always stated the due date and the absentee is responsible to post their vote in time for it to be received. In this election, absentee votes can be delivered to the election officials in a Safe Manner without using the USPS.
The same for Mail-In Voting. Even Eric Holder was encouraging people to "drop off" their votes at the election offices. Special drop-off loc
Re: (Score:2)
in a Safe Manner without using the USPS **in some places.**
FTFY. It varies greatly depending on the location. In some enormous Texas counties there was exactly on drop-off location, in other states the drop-off box was inside of buildings that were only open business hours. In other places the only drop-off location(s) were in wealthy suburban areas extremely inconvenient to the vast majority of people who needed to use them. In every location where voting was made more difficult (that I'm aware of, anyway) the groups responsible were controlled by the Republic
Re: (Score:2)
Forming a militia is obviously an individual activity, which is why firearms are an individual right. When I go into a voting booth to vote, that is clearly a group activity, which is why voting is NOT an individual right. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Voting is just as basic a right as firearms, likely far more so.
Voting is not a right at all, at least not at the federal level. If your state chooses to let you vote, or make a non-binding recommendation for who you thing some representatives should vote for, it's out of the kindness of their heart (or the believe you'll vote for who they support).
Re: (Score:2)
When I read the constitution, I see voting and elections mentioned a lot, and a lot of amendments talking about who can vote. But I only see firearms mentioned once, in one sentence. It's almost like the authors of the constitution don't agree with you...
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to actually read it rather than just scan for words. There is nothing anywhere in the US constitution that says who gets to vote at the state level, who states allow to vote is always left to the states.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? How about the 19th amendment?
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
You're... not too bright, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
An anti-discrimination clause in no way means anyone gets to vote, nor that states can't discriminate in other ways (e.g. land ownership). The closes you'll come is the 17th amendment, stating senators are elected by "the people thereof", but even then exactly who gets to vote is left up to the states. States are still free to this day to abolish all election processes and assign federal representatives in any way they see fit.
One example of something similar happening now is the few states where they're
Re: (Score:1)
What parts of shall not be infringed do they not get?
I know! Airport security are always giving me a hard time when I try and bring my gun on the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the California State Government is blatantly Anti-Gun, the citizens, many who are Pro-Choice on the matter of firearm ownership, use, and carry, do not get to make their own choices. This is simply a planned ignoring of the USA Constitution's Second Amendment (contained in the Bill of Rights). The effect is that it disarms the citizen
Got to love bribery...I mean donations (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me started on planning boards
Believable (Score:3)
A grand jury in California's Santa Clara County has indicted Thomas Moyer, Apple's head of global security, for bribery. Moyer is accused of offering 200 iPads to the Santa County Sheriff's office in exchange for concealed carry permits for four Apple employees.
I believe Thomas Moyer. 200 iPads is not a bribe. It's a curse. How is the Sheriff's department going to prevent them all being stolen? I mean they'd be surrounded by a bunch of cops. People who are famously unable to recover stolen iPads everywhere.
If guns (Score:2)
Are so difficult to acquire then why are there so many shootings?
Re: (Score:3)
Because guns are so difficult for the law abiding citizen to get and carry concealed.
Re:If guns (Score:5, Insightful)
My parents live in Texas in the county that—at least a few years ago—apparently had the highest per capita concealed carry rate in the state. Coincidentally enough, that county also had the lowest per capita violent crime rate in the state. Correlation != causation and it was something I only ever heard anecdotally, so take it all with a massive grain of salt.
You might also recall that there was an attempted mass shooting late last year at a Texas church [apnews.com]. The gunman killed two people in a surprise attack, but within six seconds two churchgoers with concealed carry permits pulled their weapons and took the gunman out, preventing him from doing anything more. Because Texas, of course.
Despite trotting out these two anecdotes that seem to favor gun rights, however, I'm actually ambivalent on the subject. I find these sorts of "pro-gun" anecdotes and stats interesting and difficult to dismiss out of hand (after all, the US isn't like the rest of the world; it's easy to say "no guns" from the start, but it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle), but I'm also aware of the equally valid stats on the other side that are even more difficult to dismiss. I'm also very aware of the revisionist history that's been ongoing with regards to the Second Amendment, namely the idea that the Second Amendment has always guaranteed an individual's right to bear arms.
It hasn't. That's a modern idea that was invented in just the last few decades. In fact, the idea was completely unheard of in legal circles until a law student made a passing reference to an NRA article in 1960, and it didn't gain any traction until the 1970s [brennancenter.org] (search for "1959" to find the relevant portion of that article). But talk to quite a few people today who likes their guns and they'll insist that the founding fathers intended it that they own a gun, despite there being ample evidence to the contrary.
All of which is to say, I don't think we have a God-given right to own guns, but I also don't think you can regulate them into oblivion and expect things to be peachy. Our nation has some problems that need fixing, and I don't have them figured out. I don't even have my own problems figured out.
Re: (Score:3)
Just curious, are there any other amendments that don't grant rights to individuals?
Trick question: none of them "grant" rights to individuals. They are there to restrict the government. "Shall not be infringed" means just that, regardless of what someone else may have told you at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tenth Amendment may be interesting to you:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Indeed, as you were getting at, the Constitution and its amendments enumerate rights that are already held by the people, but in your haste to quote the Second’s “shall not be infringed”, you skipped right by the earlier “for the security of a free State” clause. As the Tenth makes clear, the Constitution and its enumerated rights are not all held by individuals. Many of them are held by the states, not the people, and unless you th
Re: (Score:2)
In your haste to quote the 2nd and the 10th, you skipped right by the 9th. Just because a right is not enumerated, does not mean it does not exist, militia or not. A State cannot claim a right over you, which is why we abhor the States' rights loonies.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Like I said, I’m of two minds on this stuff. I may be suggesting that the legal theory wasn’t around until recently (though someone just linked a great DOJ paper on the subject in response to another post of mine that may change my mind), but that doesn’t mean the right didn’t exist for individuals until then. I was trying to allude to the Ninth without quoting it, but yes, those individual rights could well exist without necessarily being enumerated in the Second. I was simp
Re: (Score:2)
At the time the "well regulated militia" generally consisted of anyone in the community who could at a minimum swing an ax or bandage a wound, led by someone with military experience. Veterans were courted by frontier communities with offers of free land, primary water rights, and the like because of that.
Of course the reason why the 2nd Amendment says "arms" rather than "pistols, rifles, and muskets" was because no one could imagine that a limit would be necessary. Merchant ships were often better armed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t have the time now, but I’ll definitely give it a look in the next few days. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also very aware of the revisionist history that's been ongoing with regards to the Second Amendment, namely the idea that the Second Amendment has always guaranteed an individual's right to bear arms.
We know that was the intent because of what the authors and the founders wrote about it. It's not revisionist because nobody went back in time and altered those writings. You're the revisionist.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also very aware of the revisionist history that's been ongoing with regards to the Second Amendment, namely the idea that the Second Amendment has always guaranteed an individual's right to bear arms.
It hasn't. That's a modern idea that was invented in just the last few decades.
This seems like one of those "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" moments. If nothing else, your timeline is certainly not accurate, as there was a debate on the subject in 1934 in the lead up to the passage of the National Firearms Act. Indeed, the act was scaled back (it initially included handguns) after the NRA (thirty years before you suggest the idea of a individual right entered the legal realm) successfully argued against that provision. Cite [thecongressproject.com].
The defendants in US v. Miller asserted th
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, thanks for the fact-filled, informative post. I’ll definitely be reading up on it more in the coming days. Another response also provided some useful evidence against the claims I was making about the timeline of events, so it’s clear my opinion needs more consideration.
For my part, I don’t claim to have it figured out. I don’t have a logically consistent viewpoint and frequently find myself agreeing with whichever side I last heard talking cogently about the subject. Frankly, I
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:To be fair, not the only state that does this (Score:5, Insightful)
This may have been modded 0, but it's spot on. The most restrictive modern firearms laws, especially regarding concealed carry permits and "may issue" statutes, were born out of suppression of minorities (specifically blacks in most cases). Instead of everyone having the right under the federal constitution to "keep and bear arms," including open or concealed carry of a pistol, states and municipalities came up with "may issue" concealed carry laws and firearm licenses. Only those on the good side of the jolly sheriff would get such a license/permit. In the deep south, this sheriff was historically white, and those who were not white were not on the good side of the jolly white sheriff. So, the KKK might all be legally well-armed, because they were all part of the same social circles as the sheriff (even if he wasn't officially a member, although in many cases he probably was), while all the victims could not legally arm and defend themselves. If they defended themselves, they might be arrested for firearms law violations.
Cities like Chicago and New York implemented their firearms laws for similar reasons, although it was less about ethnicity and more about mob vs. non-mob. Life is harder for your enforcers and collectors if their victims can legally arm themselves, so they implemented similar firearms restrictions to the deep south, so that only the mob had legal guns.
Those who truly care about erasing social injustice and a history of systemic ethnocentrism ought to be strongly against restrictive firearms laws, but the true colors of most of the people beating the social justice and ethnocentrism drums are revealed by their strong support of such firearms laws.
Textbook grease payment (Score:5, Interesting)
From what it sounds like, this Apple exec was asked to make a "grease payment": their employees had lawfully submitted the appropriate paperwork for their concealed carry permits, they had all dotted their i's and crossed their t's, and they were then told by the officials in charge of a public service that those officials would not be performing their legally obligated duty in a timely manner unless an arrangement was made that was beneficial to the public office. That's pretty much a textbook grease payment and in many cases isn't illegal to pay (though demanding it is, obviously).
For instance, while it's illegal for US companies to bribe—pay someone to receive a service you are not entitled to—foreign officials (e.g. paying the guy at the port to let your container full of illegal goods through), the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act carves out a specific exception for making grease payments to foreign officials who are delaying the performance of duties they are legally required to perform (e.g. the guy at the port who holds all containers hostage for a few months until/unless he receives a payment). While you and I may not be okay with it, it's a fairly common and socially accepted practice in quite a few countries, in much the same way that tipping is common in the US but is viewed as a form of bribery in some other countries.
I'm not sure how the legalities of grease payments play out domestically, but it seems to me as if you're in a tough position if your case hinges on arguing that the guy who got extorted was in the wrong for allowing himself to be extorted. I didn't read the article (it is Slashdot, after all), so maybe there was an agreement that his payment would purchase favors beyond just the service he was already entitled to, in which case he would have crossed the line into bribery, but if all he did was pay them to do the job they were legally obligated to do but weren't, calling it "bribery" is a bit much.
Re: (Score:3)
Paying a bribe is illegal whatever your justification, including whether the bribed person demands it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying a bribe is illegal whatever your justification, including whether the bribed person demands it or not.
The law draws distinctions between bribes, grease payments, and extortion. Your absolutist statement suggests that you do not. While bribes are always illegal, the point of my post is that this fits the textbook definition of something that isn’t considered a bribe.
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree that this fits any definition of not a bribe. Maybe in Apple's echo chamber, of which you seem to be a part.
Re: (Score:2)
In California, it may well fit the definition of a bribe. As I said in my very first post, I don’t know about the domestic legality of grease payments and wouldn’t at all be surprised if they’re illegal. Regardless of their legality, I consider them unethical under any circumstances, but I also think it’s a weak basis on which to pursue a bribery charge.
As for the distinction between the two, it comes down to what you’re paying for:
- Are you paying to receive that which you are
Re: (Score:2)
Why are so many people trying to justify bribery, especially when I hear many of those same people (no idea about parent) proclaiming "law and order"?
Re: (Score:2)
I’m against bribery, but my point here was that this appears to be a misuse of that term.
And I didn’t vote for that guy. Either time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm skeptical that "bribe" and "grease payment" are actually different things. But I'm against the idea of government officials who need a special "payment on the side" to do their job, whether it's called a "grease payment" or "voluntary donation to re-election fund".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm skeptical that "bribe" and "grease payment" are actually different things.
Legally, they sometimes are. See the aforementioned Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
But I'm against the idea of government officials who need a special "payment on the side" to do their job, whether it's called a "grease payment" or "voluntary donation to re-election fund".
WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. Don’t confuse my explanation of grease payments for acceptance of them or anything else we’re talking about. I still remember when grease payments were explained to us in my engineering ethics course at my university. I decided right then that if the cost of doing business in a country was to make a small grease payment, they were asking too much of me, no matter the dollar amount.
Re: (Score:2)
Now a court rules you paid $20 in renewal fees and an extra $20 bribe.
No, the court would the official presenting the charge was guilty of fraud or some other crime, whereas you as the unsuspecting customer merely paid the bill as presented.
Unless you mean that you already knew the charge was only $20, and when presented with a bill for $40 and a nod/wink from the person behind the counter, went ahead with payment without challenging it?
Sure, I could find you guilty of bribing an official then - because personally I'd be asking why I'm being charged extra.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where to start... I think you tried to make a point somwhere? I award you no points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Do concealed carry permits in California usually require iPad "donations"? Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple can do no wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple can do no wrong.
Except when they illegally collude with eBook publishers, when they illegally enter “no poaching” agreements with competitors, when one of their former executives is convicted of insider trading, etc., etc., etc.. Mind you, I’m the OP here, so I’m the one you’re suggesting thinks Apple can do no wrong.
They absolutely can do wrong.
Apple is not above reproach, and it may very well turn out that this guy is guilty as sin, but if it really is a situation of him being told his lawfu
It's not bribery (Score:3)
Nice job you have here, Under-Sheriff, it would be a shame if somebody gave a couple of million bucks to your competitor next election for the Sheriff's job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's not bribery (Score:2)
Nice job you have here, Under-Sheriff, it would be a shame if somebody gave a couple of million bucks to your competitor next election for the Sheriff's job.
Surprised nobody has gone with the it's not bribery because it's in the state's interest for security professionals to have CC licenses, and it wasn't done for personal gain. /eyeroll
https://m.washingtontimes.com/... [washingtontimes.com]
This is California (Score:2)
A close friend had their building operation permit in lingo, until someone suggested they make a "donation" to a certain high profile political figure. Another friend wanted to operate city parking lots, and the department in charge would not even tell him the date to the auction. This is California for you.
If you give government officials discretionary power without oversight, you get bribes... sorry, political campaign contributions and *gifts* to city departments.
And now we are concerned since security p
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we are concerned about this, as well as the previous things you mentioned. If you accept corrupt government, then you get corrupt government. It doesn't have to be corrupt, unless you let it be.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the lack of oversight and revue that's the problem. I don't know what the CCW requirements are in California, but I suspect there is some level of objective standard to be met combined with the sheriff's discretion.
If you could appeal the latter part to a review board that could override the discretion it would eliminate a lot of the bribery element. Sheriffs would not want to show up at some kind of appeal hearing trying to explain why they wouldn't issue corporate security employees carry permits,
Wonder who signed off on this (Score:2)
200 iPads is a fair chunk of money and everything has to be accounted for. It probably was written off as some kind of outreach PR ... but Moyer wouldn't have been the one to sign off on that.
Who is Apple really standing by?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is being cheap. It looks to me (I work in the physical security profession) like they wanted to avoid paying the extra cost for armed security guards. If a regular unarmed security contractor is paid $20/hr then the customer is being charged $40-$60/hr for their services. Armed guards in that situation would probably be paid $30/hr and the customer would have to cough up $100/hr or more. The concealed carry permit is personal, doesn't belong to Apple or the security contractor, so it sounds to me
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is being cheap. It looks to me (I work in the physical security profession) like they wanted to avoid paying the extra cost for armed security guards
Sounds to me like they were willing to pay what the job was worth, not what the market the government artificially created said it was worth.
Re: (Score:2)
The government? Since when is Securitas and Pinkerton part of the government? They're not contracting with the government for security guards, only the oil companies do that (and they're called "Marines").
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they didn't want people who probably already got their license through corruption too ... corruption belongs at the top :)
Do as I say (Score:1)
Much head scratching as to why they bothered.
If the BLM inspired riot-looting is anything to go by it would seem that no permit is required as long as you are carrying for social justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I've seen better trolling at a senior citizens canasta party. You need to try harder.
At least the sheriff didn't steal (Score:2)
The same sheriff who is a big supporter of the con artist, a person whose family also stole from charity [slate.com].