He could hire 50 people to surround him at all times as a human barracade and pay them double minimum wage and still save money.
they could give all 10 people that hate Bezos a $160k amazon gift cert, free prime and fresh to win/win this.
If they need a safehouse they can stay at my place for a few days.
A reminder from today’s headlines on why even being a well-liked public figure is hazardous, let alone one worth hundreds of millions (or billions) of dollars:
How is having insured items hazardous? I could see it if this happened to them more than once in their lives ever, but they lost some insured stuff in the end, not a toe.
surely there must be more than 10 people that hate him. I don’t really care about the guy but if you asked if I hated him I’d say sure because it seems like the right thing to do, and I’m pretty amoral.
Really? You don’t think being targeted in a gas attack is risky?
How about kidnapping and ransom? Although that is not in the news today, that happens periodically.
Or just being targeted by a crazy person, for no rational reason? Because we periodically lose a public figure to that as well.
I couldn’t say 700k is justified or not, but it’s certainly a drop in the bucket for Apple.
I think a more interesting question is why the companies should pay for this security as opposed to the individuals themselves, particularly if it is for extra security away from corporate offices.
Company needs, company protects. What’s the problem?
Being robbed deprives you of a good deal more than the material goods lost.
It’s a trap!
Considering the material loss to a company like Apple or Amazon if someone were to randomly off their CEO would be measured in the Billions, yeah, this seems quite reasonable to me. And yes, there are many many crazies out there, some of whom target famous people. And Bezos and Cook are prominent, and some people really really hate them. Paying money to protect key people is totally reasonable.
That doesn’t really seem like an important distinction. It is because they are the CEO of Apple/Amazon makes them targets, and whether the company or the individual pays for it, they company pays for it.
Is it being CEO of Apple or Amazon that make them potential targets, or the obscene amounts of money and stocks they’re paid by those companies to be CEOs that make them targets? I suspect the latter. In which case they ought to fund the protection from their own inflated earnings …
As the article notes, this includes private flights and cybersecurity, too, neither of which come cheap.
Both, but the money that they get doesn’t even have to be that obscene. Low-jackpot lottery winners are the targets of extortion threats. People get targeted for death threats (and even attempts) for the most innocuous things. Remember Rebecca Schaeffer, without Googling her name? That’s kind of the point. (Cook, as one of the most prominent LGBT people in business, probably gets an extra serving.)
How often does it happen? Shouldn’t one, therefore, be concerned about rabid ticks?
In fact, no. You don’t have to worry about getting rabies from ticks, basically at all.
(Were you thinking Lyme Disease? Because, yes, people should worry about that quite a bit more than they do.)
My point was how often do thieves wait until you come home and gas out the house? You might as well worry about rabid ticks. Thanks for being pedantic so you could miss the point.