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?

Depends on how disposed you are to like the company I guess? When a high level director at Google does something bad, we say on here that Google did something bad. Same at Facebook. I don't know why it should be different for Apple.

But the issue in question at the moment isn't about whether we get to rub things in the face of apple-loving posters. The question is about whether this individual wields the supposed power Apple has in this situation.

It’s the head of apple security. That is Apple. Apple would do well to swiftly terminate their relationship and get in front with PR statements of their own and further acts to minimize blowback. Then, when the head of security has his day in court, Apple will be vindicated. Then, and only then, is it the head of security. Until that point it’s entirely Apple (and why companies make such a big deal about anti-bribery training)

FWIW, it would be just as bad of a look if instead the head of security’s wife was engaged in this scheme at her own workplace. And Apple would be 100% correct to still terminate their relationship for fear of bad press