Security teams and protecting executives

[ATCclears]

Big companies are scrambling to adjust security protocols for top executives after the killing of UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson in New York last week.

How companies handle security for CEOs varies widely. While many executives move about without an extensive security team, feeling that it is unnecessary or overly intrusive, some companies are now considering spending more to protect key individuals.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/how-security-teams-protect-top-executives-bcf6c45f?st=mH7rEi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Read More

 

[arakboss]

I would suggest the CEOs move North.

 

[WillametteWill]

I'm betting Gavin de Becker just added another zero or two to his net worth.

 

[bcp]

Or the companies.could quit doing things people want to shoot them for.

Bruce

 

[Stomper]

Or the companies.could quit doing things people want to shoot them for.

Bruce

Politicians take note!

 

[bradsteen]

The security of executives is dependent on their willingness to be protected. Effective security comes at a cost of personal freedoms, which many folks find too intrusive. For example, if the protectee needs to use the bathroom, the detail needs to clear it before the protectee enters. Under those circumstances many CEOs turn down protection, or keep it just one or two bodyguards, but that's more security theater than actual protection.