Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Global Security Chief Indicted in Scheme to Trade iPads for Gun Permits, but Apple Says It's Found No Wrongdoing

Finally, I was starting to Give Up that MR would ever cover this story !

IMO, Top Apple Execs should be allowed to get Concealed Carry Gun Permits.

Then, get each a Glock 43X !

IMO, if everyone here in CA had such a Permit, a 43X, & a shotgun (for Home), Crime would be down significantly !

Disclaimer: I do NOT own a gun, nor I have I ever ... but I've listed the two I desire most !
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: damphoose, Gasu E., sinoka56 and 4 others
The bribery ask should have been reported immediately. Nothing ever good happens by agreeing or working to fulfill a bribery request. The odds of it coming into the open is always pretty good and the penalties can be quite severe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brucemr and Johnny907
Carnegie said:
This seems more like extortion than bribery.
Click to expand...
The difference between the two being that with bribery, you're requesting something illegal, and with extortion, you're requesting something that's legal...

it took me reading your comment several times to figure that out.

IDK - I think in all my corporate compliance lectures, it all fell under bribery.

There may be details being left out that change it from extortion to bribery, IE, maybe there's a long waiting list, so they decided to try (illegally) expediting the process by offering iPads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid and Johnny907
Carnegie said:
This seems more like extortion than bribery.

An Apple employee gets extorted by a government actor. That employee complies with the extortion in order to get what they are (or should be) entitled to. Another government actor charges the extortion victim with bribery. Apparently, the extortion victim should have reported one government actor's extortion attempt to a different government actor and hoped that things worked out. (They should have reported it, but they also shouldn't be held criminally liable for complying with the government's extortion. It's understandable if they didn't want to report the government's extortion. Reporting government extortion might be fraught in ways that reporting extortion by private parties might not be.)

People shouldn't need permits to lawfully carry firearms. But even if they are required to get them (which they effectively are in California, because open carry is generally prohibited), government actors should't have broad discretion when it comes to whether permits are issued to particular individuals. There should be objective criteria which determine whether particular individuals can get permits. A local sheriff's office shouldn't get to decide whether they like someone enough (or are getting enough from them in return) to issue them a permit.
Click to expand...
MMm. No. If it was simple extorsion this grown adult in a position of power at one of the most powerful companies in the world should have gone straight to his massive legal department and let them handle it. He didn't. Why?
Moyer isn't a victim here. Rigged against him or not, he chose to be complicit with the illegal subversion of a legal process instead of reporting it like an ethical individual would have.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: freedomlinux, sinoka56, Lancetx and 3 others
TheDailyApple said:
Weird, why would you agree to a bribe when you could just report it and get your permit legally (and cheaply)?
Click to expand...
Because you can't. In almost all of the populous coastal counties in CA, they are "may issue" rather than "shall issue". This generally means that unless you've somehow got an in with the county sheriff or the political apparatus, you're not getting a permit.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: jhfenton, damphoose, PowerBook-G5 and 8 others
No "bang bang", no "pad pad". Californian's have already shown they can't be trusted by their continued voting in of career politicians and expecting things to change.
 
jhfenton said:
The only unusual thing about this case is that it's being prosecuted. In states like NJ, MD, NY, and many counties in CA, only the well-connected can get concealed carry licenses. That's not a coincidence.
Click to expand...
This story reminds me of a town hall during which an audience member asked Mike Bloomberg why he's trying to take away guns from regular people but has armed bodyguards himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaPhox, SDJim and icanhazmac
"For Apple's part, the company is standing by Moyer, providing a statement to Ars Technica indicating that it has investigated the situation and "found no wrongdoing."

I always found this case strange - not enough money and/or benefit for this Apple Chief to get involved - this person stock comps are probably in the millions.
 
ArtOfWarfare said:
The difference between the two being that with bribery, you're requesting something illegal, and with extortion, you're requesting something that's legal...

it took me reading your comment several times to figure that out.

IDK - I think in all my corporate compliance lectures, it all fell under bribery.

There may be details being left out that change it from extortion to bribery, IE, maybe there's a long waiting list, so they decided to try (illegally) expediting the process by offering iPads.
Click to expand...
According to the reporting, Mr. Moyer didn't offer the iPads. The Sheriff's Office asked for the iPads in order for the permits to be issued. The only real question is whether Mr. Moyer (or the permit applicants) were asking for something they weren't legally allowed to have. If so, then yes, this seems more likely bribery. They were willing to pay to get something they otherwise shouldn't have gotten.

But I doubt that's the situation. Do we have reason to believe that the permit applicants didn't qualify for some reason? And that's why they had to bribe the Sheriff's Office? Or did they qualify and the Sheriff's Office demanded the iPads for something that should have been issued anyway? That's more like extortion. This is one of the problems with a permitting system that gives so much discretion to local law enforcement.

This analogy is, of course, not perfect. But assuming the permit applicants qualified for the permits, it's pretty close:

You go to the DMV to get a driver's license. You demonstrate that you qualify for the license. But the head of the DMV says... I'm not going to give it to you unless you donate something to the DMV. That's more like extortion. You aren't offering something improper to get something you aren't otherwise entitled to. Rather, the government is demanding something improper for something you are otherwise entitled to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PickUrPoison and SDJim
Unsurprised to see that “guilty until proven innocent” is alive and well in MR forums.

2010mini said:
Bribery for something you shouldn’t need a permit for. Right to bear arms..... not right to bear arms only if the government allows. Or if one bribes the government enough.
Click to expand...

jhfenton said:
True, but that also shouldn't require a license, or at least, as in more than 40 states, a license easily-acquired with a background check and usually some basic training.
Click to expand...

DesertNomad said:
Your concealed carry permit should be the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
Yes, the “well regulated” bit of the second amendment escapes many people.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: jhfenton, damphoose, freedomlinux and 7 others
I see this pattern of government extortion of wealthy companies has repeated itself- remember when the Cupertino City Council tried to shake Steve Jobs down for free public Wi-Fi throughout the city when he presented his proposal for Apple Park?
 
Johnny907 said:
MMm. No. If it was simple extorsion this grown adult in a position of power at one of the most powerful companies in the world should have gone straight to his massive legal department and let them handle it. He didn't. Why?
Moyer isn't a victim here. Rigged against him or not, he chose to be complicit with the illegal subversion of a legal process instead of reporting it like an ethical individual would have.
Click to expand...
As I suggested, reporting an extortion attempt by a government actor - a law enforcement officer, at that - is a little different than reporting an extortion attempt by a private actor. The former is fraught with risks that aren't necessarily there with the latter. Government actors have often behaved improperly, and violated individuals' rights, and gotten away with it - and assistance or relief from other government actors isn't always forthcoming. It's reasonable to think... maybe I should just go along with this, complaining to one government actor that another is acting improperly might make things worse.

At any rate, assuming arguendo that Mr. Moyer should have reported the extortion attempt, I don't see how Mr. Moyer (or Apple) isn't a victim here. Do you have reason to believe the permit applicants didn't qualify for the permits? If not, then they were asking the government for something they were entitled to. And the government refused to give it to them unless they gave the government something the government wasn't entitled to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dman22 and PickUrPoison
Carnegie said:
This seems more like extortion than bribery.

An Apple employee gets extorted by a government actor. That employee complies with the extortion in order to get what they are (or should be) entitled to. Another government actor charges the extortion victim with bribery. Apparently, the extortion victim should have reported one government actor's extortion attempt to a different government actor and hoped that things worked out. (They should have reported it, but they also shouldn't be held criminally liable for complying with the government's extortion. It's understandable if they didn't want to report the government's extortion. Reporting government extortion might be fraught in ways that reporting extortion by private parties might not be.)

People shouldn't need permits to lawfully carry firearms. But even if they are required to get them (which they effectively are in California, because open carry is generally prohibited), government actors should't have broad discretion when it comes to whether permits are issued to particular individuals. There should be objective criteria which determine whether particular individuals can get permits. A local sheriff's office shouldn't get to decide whether they like someone enough (or are getting enough from them in return) to issue them a permit.
Click to expand...
It ceases to become extortion if the extorted party is complicit in the act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back