Silicon Valley execs are spending considerable amounts of money to protect their executives, with Facebook spending more than $7million to keep Mark Zuckerberg safe.
Facebook spent $7.3million for Zuckerberg’s security in 2017, Wired reports. 2018’s total security spending for the exec expected to reach $10million.
Zuckerberg security detail cost just $2.6million in 2013, the same amount Facebook spent to protext chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg in 2018.
Other tech giants are a little more frugal about shelling out to keep their head honchos safe.
Facebook spent $7.3million for Zuckerberg’s security in 2017. 2018’s total security spending for the exec expected to reach $10million
Apple spent $310,000 on security for CEO Tim Cook, according to their most recently filed proxy statement that was filed earlier this month.
Amazon spent approximately $1.6million on protection for Jeff Bezos, a similar figure Oracle spent for Larry Ellison, according to documents filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Alphabet, the parent company for Google, spent roughly $600,000 to protect CEO Sundar Pichai. They spent an additional $300,00 on security for former executive chair Eric Schmidt.
Zuckerberg security detail cost just $2.6million in 2013, the same amount Facebook spent to protext chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg in 2018
Intel spent $1.2million on detail for former CEO Brian Krzanich in 2017.
For Facebook, an SEC filing details how a committee from the board authorized ‘overall security program’ for Zuckerberg ‘to address safety concerns due to specific threats to his safety.’
Included in the filing were details pertaining to the security established at Zuckerberg’s homes and the cost of maintaining them. ‘We believe that the costs of this overall security program are appropriate and necessary,’ the company said in the filing.
The 2018 increase is believed to be a result of Zuckerberg’s controversial image tied to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, data breaches and testimony he gave to Congress.
According to Arnette Heintze, who runs a security consultancy called Hillard Heintze, the Facebook head is probably the priciest head in security.
Other tech giants are a little more frugal about shelling out to keep their head honchos safe
‘I’d put that $10 million among the top five highest in the country. And from what I’ve read in the media about Facebook, that seems to be an appropriate level of expense,’ added the CEO of the Chicago-based company.
Heintze added: ‘When Zuckerberg was going up before Congress, I can imagine the increased threats. If you have 2 billion users and just 1 percent of those get mad, you could be getting a lot of correspondence. The people responsible for protection have to evaluate that; they literally have to make an assessment on every known statement. They can’t take the chance.’
The CEO had worked in the US Secret Service for more than 20 years before going into the private sector, a common trait among many in the industry.
Amazon spent approximately $1.6million on protection for Jeff Bezos
Oracle spent $1.6million on Larry Ellison
Through Beverly Hills security firms World Protection Group and 001, Kent Moyer can protect a plethora of executives and billionaires. Moyer advises his clients to use LLCs when acquiring large assets and to not use their real names on social media.
He also tells them to use encrypted apps to send texts and to register social media accounts to throwaway email addresses.
‘There are times where clients send me a text, and I say, I don’t want to text you using regular texting,’ Moyer added.
‘We don’t believe in our clients using regular phones. We set up anonymous phones; mine are in Faraday bags.’ His firm also recommends using VPNs to obscure a device’s location and using search engines that don’t track users.
Most executives aren’t fans of their nagging personnel, according to Heintze.
‘I can assure you that there is no executive in America that wants people hanging around them,’ she said. It’s an intrusion. It’s an inconvenience, but it’s a necessary inconvenience for people that have real threats.’