So, in order to prevent the whole thing from crashing down, there has to be a safety margin of extra ribbon above GEO, meaning some extra tension in the wire, even at ground level. That barge can't be too light-weight, or else it'll turn into a space-barge...
Think about a foundation strong enough to withstand the pressures of a 100-200 mile high tower pressing down.
Connected to a platform in space, the mass of the platform is to spin with the Earth's rotation. Centrifugal force is actually pulling on the elevator 'cable'.
Actually, pulling up is much worse than pressing down... The cable would just rip the foundation out from the bedrock. So you'd need to drill really deep to suitably anchor this beast.
But beta still sucks...
Most of us have cellphones which we can use to make personal calls and even access the internet...
... and in an open plan office, your nosy neighbour on the other side of the cupboard still overhears you call...
Years of using MS product GUI's have conditioned people to do a quick click through and accept everything so the default ends up trusting some proxy box as if it is the bank.
If people behave in such a way, they'd be vulnerable anywhere (cybercafé, airport, hotel or even at home (thanks to the many router vulnerabilities)), not just at their place of work. Microsoft, and Microsoft-induced behavior carry security risks. Deal with it.
However, what sets the workplace situation apart from the other scenarios is that if done properly, the employee would see no warning. Because the IT department included the employer's certificate into the list of roots trusted by the browser.
My entire point is that these devices remove any advantage of using https.
Obviously, if you used the guest Wifi, you'd use your own device, which would not be infested with the fraudulent root certificate of your employer.
With all the setups of this type I have heard of there is no opt out.
Worse than, the "SSL accelerator" box would now be responsible to check the certificate of the server, in order to be sure that there isn't a second man in the middle further down the road. But the thing is, how would it react if it encountered a bad certificate:
- if it rejects the connection, suddenly lots of low sensitivity sites which just have expired certificates, or which rely on the user to manually verifiy the fingerprint become inaccessible,
- if on the other hand it accepts (or doesn't check in the first place), we have the security issue outlined above.