Remember some few weeks back; Unannounced, Facebook Founder, Mark Zuckerberg sneaked into Nigeria without any protocol or heavy security officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) or any other world class security agency.
The 32-year-old tech entrepreneur who is the seventh richest man in the world with total assets based of $55.74B to meet with tech entrepreneur has been seen in major streets of Lagos meeting with people young chaps, jugging on the popular Ikoyi Bridge, meeting with Nollywood actors and holding events with techpreneurs and many more.
The question is does the Facebook Founder has any security protecting him against any attack?
The social-media company shelled out $5 million last year to make sure its co-founder and CEO had protection around the clock, according to regulatory filings.
Maybe Zuckerberg really does need protection, after ISIS earlier this year threatened him and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
Either Zuckerberg is paranoid or there are far fewer people out to get powerful Apple CEO Tim Cook — whose company spent relative chump change of $209,151 on his safety last year, the filings show.
And Twitter spent only $68,500 last year to keep Dorsey safe.
“Because of the high visibility of our company, our compensation and governance committee has authorized an overall security program for Mr. Zuckerberg to address safety concerns due to specific threats to his safety arising directly as a result of his position as our founder, chairman and CEO,” Facebook’s filing states.
“We require these security measures for the company’s benefit because of the importance of Mr. Zuckerberg to Facebook, and we believe that the costs of this overall security program are ¬appropriate and necessary.”
The 2015 budget to protect Zuckerberg was actually down from the $6.2 million spent for his security in 2014, filings show.
In 2013, Facebook spent some $3.2 million on security for its leader, meaning that three years of keeping Zuckerberg out of harm’s way has added up to about $14.4 million.
The security package includes bodyguards, private-jet travel and maintenance of alarms, cameras and other equipment at his residences, documents show.
The Post’s Page Six exclusively reported in February that Zuckerberg had 16 bodyguards working in shifts to trail him.
Zuckerberg is married to his Harvard sweetheart, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, and they’re the parents of a 5-month-old daughter, Maxima.
The 32-year-old tech pioneer is worth $44.6 billion and is the youngest person on the Forbes list of the 10 wealthiest people in the world.
Zuckerberg isn’t the only Facebook big to get major protection.
The company said it also shelled out nearly $1.3 million last year to make sure Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg was properly safeguarded, regulatory filings reveal.


Where's Dominique & Lalasticalala ...

ordinary local government chairman in nigeria spends more dan dat on security, Nigeria where dey cut grass with 272 million. Abeg

there's mc chip in his body.

Wish another celeb would come.

I knew it.

Of course, do you expect him to go About without some form of protection.

I'm still doubtful anyone really believed he didn't have any form of protection especially in Nigeria where the US has made a duty to paint as terribly unsafe. The US consulate would have been aware of his visit and would have given him very strong warning about his movements in Nigeria and he would have ignored the warnings and be careless about his safety? Tell me something else.

After all the epistle still couldn't see where you affirmed he was with security detail when he came to Nigeria. I'm not sure anyone argues he's without none, ever over there. He sure could even have Navy SEALS guarding him around in his country, But the bone of contention is " who protected him while he walked around here in Nigeria"? (Which your epistle still fails to reveal) A sort of invisible voltron? He could have even come with couple of Guards over here. Very possible, but it still doesn't change the fact that he was most times seen alone without any, probably elected not to go with any in some instances.

GetUmad:
After all the epistle still couldn't see where you affirmed he was with security detail when he came to Nigeria. I'm not sure anyone argues he's without none, ever over there. He sure could even have Navy SEALS guarding him around in his country, But the bone of contention is " who protected him while he walked around here in Nigeria"? (Which your epistle still fails to reveal) A sort of invisible voltron? He could have even come with couple of Guards over here. Very possible, but it still doesn't change the fact that he was most times seen alone without any, probably elected not to go with any in some instances.

There is really a difference between a private detail and a bodyguard. A detail is designed to nip in the bud existential incidents before they even become threats while a bodyguard is basically there to physically confront those threats. A detail is groomed to blend into any situation which could be far from the target under guard. If you still have doubts if Mark was protected in Nigeria then I must confess to you that the details did a perfect job.

Mark is a US national asset. Who is to say he had no chip on him and a drone in the sky.

Lalasticlala mynd44