• peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    14 hours ago

    “forcing leaders to ask themselves uncomfortable questions about their own preparedness for a threat landscape that appears far more serious than many realized just a week ago.”

    It’s probably even more serious than they think it is right now too.

    In fact, all I see are talks of securing these executives. And as the article points out, security is a sunk cost. There is no financial gain. That means as security gets more expensive, they will have to weigh how to afford it versus the problems they cause.

    Fear isn’t the word I think we want though, fear seems too normal. Terror sounds closer to what they likely need to feel before things get better.

    • Mirshe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      This is exactly my thought. C-levels are going to want competent security and not Rent A Cops, which costs. Companies which provide those services already charge a decent chunk of change for it, and the rates will likely go through the roof now. Additionally, I think they’ll find that these “security consultants” will suggest absolutely unacceptable lifestyle changes for them to minimize areas of concern. Much easier to secure a house than a whole nightclub, or golf course.

      • granolabar@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Also, I am assuming a lot of grade A security are SOF types who fought in two stupid wars on behalf of owner class.

        Makes you wonder how a person like that would feel about a dead parasite him or her self

        Hmmm

        Would they really care to take a bullet for a parasite?

        There is really no way to tell, sadly.