The point was not lost on me. By the numbers, lyme disease is a bad example for your case; it’s common enough that people should absolutely be concerned with it when they walk through the weeds or the woods. The consequences of not taking precautions are severe enough to warrant caution.
It’s actually a better metaphor for my side of the argument than yours.
Nope, still talking about made up rabid ticks. Lyme disease is a real thing. International criminals gassing your house to steal half a million dollars of your stuff is still as rare as rabid ticks. It can happen in certain scenarios but you don’t really have to worry about it.
I am not talking solely about gas attacks is the point, of course those are incredibly rare.
Let’s continue to use the analog of rabid ticks and gas attacks then.
If a stroll through the forest is like being the Apple CEO (admittedly a weak metaphor, but I am trying to shoehorn it into the tick scenario…), rabid ticks is something you don’t have to worry about too terribly much in the scheme of things.
But, the list of other things you have to worry about is rather more troubling:
-Lyme disease via ticks
-Mosquitos
-Poison Ivy, poison oak
-Thistles, brambles
-Bears
-Wolves
-Snakes
-Correctly identifying wild mushrooms
-Getting lost
-Changes in weather
-In case of rain, hypothermia
-Pitfalls
-Rabid animals
-Dehydration
You can trump up a similarly long list of risks associated with being the head of a company, or just a public figure with money.
Are you seriously suggesting that a CEO is not a target?
Yes. Are you overstating their importance? We don’t have security for US Senators or Congressmen and they are literally voting on actual issues that affect everyone in the nation.
“What are the risks? According to Just 2 Seconds, business executives aren’t targeted for assassination as often as other prominent individuals. Of 436 successful attacks on public figures worldwide from 1970 to 2000, 68% of the targets were politicians and government officials, and just 6% were business executives.”
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/21/ceo-security-spending-lead-comp-cx_mk_0821security.html
Their importance to the company, not at all.
“Successful attacks” is cherry picking, and still misses the point that being a public figure puts you at an elevated risk.
You can make an argument about proportionality, regarding how much is appropriate to spend on a CEO’s security, and that would be more defensible. Even your article cites this being largely based on perception of worth to an organization.
Personally, if I was on the Apple board, spending 700k a year on Tim Cook’s personal safety would be a no-brainer.
If I am reading between the lines correctly, it seems like it rubs you the wrong way that CEO’s are treated as being worth more than laymen. I mean, there’s no love lost on this site for CEO’s of any kind.
It’s also about attacks in general. They just don’t happen as often as these guys seem to think it does.
USCP only work in DC. A VA Senator drives home, he’s on his own. We just don’t live in as dangerous a country as some people want to tell you.
All of the CEOs that I know of billion dollar companies get by with security through obscurity. They don’t have teams of people, they fly commercial airlines, they get by just fine without overstating their importance. A security team does exactly that and reassures them they are irreplaceable.
Tim Cook seems to have replaced Steve Jobs without a problem. These guys are cogs in the wheel like anyone else.
Wake up, people! Didn’t you watch Firewall?
Oh, those documentaries are all the same, dry and boring.
Risk is a function of consequence versus likelihood.
Likelihood might be lower than politicians (still higher relative to you and I), but the consequence is extremely high.
Cook joined Apple in March 1998[4] as Senior Vice President (SVP) of Worldwide Operations—he also served as Executive Vice President (EVP) of Worldwide Sales and Operations—and was Chief Operating Officer (COO) until he was named the CEO of Apple on August 24, 2011
He is a cog in a machine, a sentiment which I definitely agree with. However, those sorts of cogs are not a dime a dozen, hence the perceived high consequences.
How much is spent on the COO? The CFO? Eventually you get to someone that it just isn’t worth a dime to “protect” them from spooky ghosts. Since all Apple stock has done since the iPhone is go up, even with a major CEO change, In fact, they’ve probably done better since Jobs died.
All these corporations have a chain. you kidnap the CEO, the COO keeps plugging away. All a kidnapping will do for shareholder value is increase mentions of the brand on the news.
Maybe keeping these guys protected may not be in the shareholder’s best interests…
Every employee is worth spending security money on, as the numbers quoted include cybersecurity costs. Executives in particular require good cyber security and identity theft prevention at a minimum. But, I suspect if the information was public, we’d quickly find in the chain that no physical security costs were covered, since the CEO is usually the most public figure.
AAPL since Job’s death hasn’t all been roses and kittens.
A small, unknown but publicly traded company with a solid foundation could benefit from tragedy befalling the CEO.
AAPL would take a nose dive. Investors panic.
Did I read right that you wish more CEO’s were assassinated?
[quote=“caryroys, post:31, topic:63303”]
Did I read right that you wish more CEO’s were assassinated?
[/quote]Yes, this is exactly what I wrote. It’s like what do you call 600 lawyers in the Marinas Trench?
I think we’re done here.
I’ve been done here for a while. Since rabid ticks.
I tend to agree.
“Too few zeroes”?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
