Love how well you have broken down CEO's security spend based on how they rate in an Ego scale.
Could explain a lot of other things about some of the bizarre decisions they make as well...
When Snap filed documents last week for its IPO filing, among the interesting snippets that emerged was the cost of security for its CEO Evan Spiegel: a somewhat extraordinary $890,000. What does $890,000 buy you in terms of security and why it is necessary for the CEO of Snapchat to have that degree of protection? And how …
Tim Cook. Is the CEO of Apple. But if you ask anyone who's the first name that they think of when it comes to Apple... its Steve Jobs. (Steve Jobs[RIP] is still a large chunk of the brand).
Zuck? He too is the brand. So he's a much larger and brighter light that attracts moths.
So while there's an ego element, there's also a larger chance that Zuck has a larger crazy fan base than Tim Cook. Also more haters and more threats.
But what do I know? I only used my FB profile while I pulled a gig there. Not because I wanted to be on FB.
Tim Cook. Is the CEO of Apple. But if you ask anyone who's the first name that they think of when it comes to Apple... its Steve Jobs. (Steve Jobs[RIP] is still a large chunk of the brand).
In addition to the security dividend of being wotsisname that replaced Steve Jobs, tim also benefits from the halo effect of looking the spit of UK national treasure Paul O'Grady. That's gotta help defuse a few tense security situations
If there are children who go to a school then that will entail extra security.
Yup. You don't see it reported often, but kidnapping does happen and however much you hate their parents, you don't wish that on any kid - even if they come out of it OK it still leaves a substantial trauma. If I had that money I'd spend it on protecting my family too.
"[...] but kidnapping does happen and however much you hate their parents, you don't wish that on any kid [...]"
A Venezuelan neighbour here in England still hasn't really got used to the fact that people will let their children play outside their house. She and her English husband moved from Venezuela partly because of the risk of kidnap of their child - and they were just ordinary people.
Sounds like it is only this spring, and then he will move to the White House. Who would want to start a new school in the middle of the year as a 10 year old?
The thing that will really rack up the costs (and make Obama's visits to Hawaii look like chicken feed) will be Trump's weekend junkets to his places in NYC and Florida. No doubt the republicans who were so outraged about Obama's secret service bill will suddenly go all quiet, because between regular weekend 'vacations' and Trump Tower security his secret service bill will probably exceed the total of all eight of Obama's years by the end of 2017!
Some of the media have been targeting Trump's youngest son for criticism. The kid doesn't appear to have done anything that would warrant such attention. He can't help who his father is.
I got into the whole privacy gig exactly because of someone who had been kidnapped at age 11 and things did not go well. The echo of those events still haunt this person, two decades later. I also deal with families whose kids are targeted by journalists because they don't quite know how to protect themselves yet - it's simply astonishing how low some people are prepared to sink for a bit of money.
I don't care how rich or poor someone is, they still have rights and especially when it concerns kids I have no problem with dealing with offenders *very* harshly. I have seen the results.
While it is unlikely that a programmer, driven mad by years of dealing with little-endian memory, will seek out the CEO of Intel. And I don't imagine there are many Samsung loyalists strapping Galaxy notes to themselves and trying to blow up Tim Cook
Mr Zuckerberg faces risks of mad right-wingers who think Facebook is part of a democrat conspiracy, mad left-wingers who think Facebook is a corporate invader of privacy. Then even madder even righter wingers who think he is a secret zionist conspiracy and even madder even lefter wingers who think it is a fascist government conspiracy.
Then there are all the people who are just driven mad by cat videos.
to be fair some of us just think Facebook is for cunts.
I'm told that's Imgur and tumblr. Facebook may be controlled by someone who wants to know what everybody is doing, everywhere, all the time so it can profit from advertising - but it's bang in line with fundamentalist Christian views on sex education, i.e. there shouldn't be any.
Certainly you don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist or any sort of nutcase, just analytical, to wonder if Zuckerberg or Eric Schmitt (The least spoken of Google boss) is more evil and wonder how much like the corporate guy in Fifth Element they are.
Maybe the security is in case Bruce Willis or Chuck Norris comes after him, because Zuckerberg seems to have a tenuous grasp of reality, he may not realise that (a) Fictional, (b) Getting old.
Also he doesn't seem to care about our privacy any more than Schmitt does.
Maybe the security is in case Bruce Willis or Chuck Norris comes after him, because Zuckerberg seems to have a tenuous grasp of reality, he may not realise that (a) Fictional, (b) Getting old.
Hang on, what's the real story here, that Bruce Willis is fictional or that Chuck Norris ages?
Probably find there are more than a few lunatics among those who blame Facebook for their ex/cheating partner who communicated via the site in some form or another.
That on top of those who see a page and comments on Facebook they disagree with and have evil thoughts towards the company and it's senior staff for allowing x or y to be said and not taking such content down.
All the CEO's have the obvious kidnap and ransom worry but other than the Facebook CEO hate is more personal or on a personal level that say the hate we may have for Microsoft or Windows 10. It makes sense to spend more on the security of the founder of Facebook than someone who recently joined a hardware company as a CEO.
If you go to the Burger Master in Bellevue, WA, you can see Bill chowing down for lunch, sometimes with Melinda, and usually with some of the other original MSFT folk, but sometimes alone. Most of the time, he'll let you just sit right down with him to talk, and he'll share his fries with you. The original Microsoft offices are right across what used to be a street (Now SR-520). Pretty easy to forget that that guy has enough money to buy The Netherlands outright...
Although it helps that his kids are old enough to look after themselves and if someone were to kill him, all the money would go right into his foundation. Doesn't really need security, because there aren't very many people that would want to harm a 61-year-old retiree / philanthropist.
...(not a phrase I ever thought I'd type)... he has his smug little mug plastered onto the newsfeed of a billion random people almost daily, asking them if they'd like to follow him. The risk of some loony taking that a bit too literally is probably much higher than for the likes of Bezos or Schmidt.
Shouldn't any sort of personal security be paid for by the CEO personally? Maybe if they are travelling on business, I can see it as an expense, but protecting their home? You want it protected you pay for it Zuck!
If I was a shareholder I'd be fuming right about now...
Maintaining my status as an underachieving nobody is cheap, easy and effortless.
If ever El Reg started a freemium model whereby one has to earn coins from upvotes to purchase AC credits I'd probably have to up my security budget.
Then again, if El Reg ever became a pay to win setup I'd probably go elsewhere or pay a botter in Taiwan to grind out my coins for me.
That would be Muammar Gaddafi, he had at least $200 Billion squirreled away in banks accounts until he got his comeuppance.
Putin being worth that much is quite likely just some lie he perpetuates to try and seem rich, just like Donald "I used to have $10 Billion dollars but managed to lose most of it" Trump.
Of course that doesn't compare to Augustus Caesar who was worth the eye-watering sum of $4.6 Trillion dollars (In 2015 money)...
How much money Putin stored away through his oligarchs in exchange for his protection is really not know, of course, and it would be very dangerous for anybody knowing it to tell.
He made unofficial travels to Switzerland - and that lead to many suspicion of how much of its treasure is stored there. Let's remember a few people are exploiting Russia natural resources to live like nabobs returning just the minimum amount to keep the population quiet... and Putin wants his share.
It's rarely the CEO that decides the level of security needed. Typically, there is either an internal threat assessment team or the assessment is done by an outside consultant. Often this is mandated by either the board or clauses in key man insurance, but not always.
Rarely does the CEO actually have much input in how much or how security is provided for him. Yes, as CEO they can approve or refuse security, but in my experience, most security teams/consultants will do their best to present the worst possible credible scenario and rarely get refused. Typically, kidnapping is the biggest worry, even if it's exceedingly rare in Western countries.
For years Mark Z. had no security, I actually ran into once in downtown Palo Alto - he was getting coffee for a bunch of people in his team (this was when FB had it's offices downtown). I guess the threats have become greater since then.
"I guess the threats have become greater since then."
Anyone in the public eye in the USA is probably a potential target.
1981. Ronald Reagan's would be assassin's motivation for the attack was to impress actress Jodie Foster of whom he was an obsessed fan. He was found to be insane.
1980. John Lennon's assassin said “I felt that by killing John Lennon I would become somebody". He was not found to be insane.
You are probably right. When combined with the said threat assessment team's natural tendency to exaggerate the threat (so as to pad its own budget) and a new parent's hormone-driven paranoia about his child, that could easily explain the difference.
OK, I've heard the names because I've been on this site for long enough, but I honestly wouldn't recognise anyone on the list except for the two named in the title.
I also find it odd that the googly name on the list is their Gob-for-hire rather than either of the two founders. It takes real ego to arrive at a company after all the hard work has been done and pretend or imply that you are the most important guy there.
This post has been deleted by its author