Simple. This doesn't meet the criteria required to activate a giant global collaboration of space agencies. There needs to be more than 200 people lost to invoke the charter.
However, I think the fact that the school initially denied what they had done and then reconfigured the network is quite telling.
No, it really isn't. Take off the tinfoil hat, the most likely scenario goes thus:
"No, we don't intercept SSL communications, student."
"Hey Bob, looks like we left that setting enabled that installs the CCA certificate on client devices."
"Ah shit. Can we disable that?"
"Yeah, but it's gonna mean restarting the ASA."
(Restarts ASA. 5 minute IOS boot time ensues)
The big difference is between this and the OP, though, is that my company owns these laptops.
Yeah... and you and YOUR COMPANY (rather) potentially get to share liability with your service provider, in the event that your CA's private key facilitates the commission of fraud or some other crime against the user, for example, if the zScaler CA or zScaler's infrastructure is used to steal banking information or PII from someone using one of these laptops; the person can sue your company and/or Information Technology professionals responsible for the intercept or misappropriation of information.
For what it's worth though.... the user could also sue if there was a keylogger installed on it by your company that lead to to damages against them, or possibly if there was malware -- that the owner of a laptop had a duty to prevent or detect.
It doesn't matter that your company owns the laptop. Legally you can surveil the activity of the laptop, BUT there is a duty of care that comes with you and your company's choice to do so and legal owernship of the laptop.
So your company best be darned 100% certain that zScaler passes all due dilligence for protection of crypto secured information.
Well, actually, no, since the devices are provisioned for work use. If your bank or passport details are stolen because you used your WORK laptop on the WORK network to access those PERSONAL sites, that's on you. The company only has a duty of care to protect information they know thy have.
I'm guessing the software they get students to install is Cisco Clean Access, and the CA is most likely only available by logging onto the Cisco device doing traffic management and network protection. "Protection" of the CA would be unnecessary, because it's entirely probable that it's not even possible to get the CA private key.
Most likely the IT staff didn't even realise that they had root CA provisioning enabled - Cisco configurations are usually mazes of poorly documented switches, commands and screens.
I would indeed contest that they are in part indirect methods of paying. Because they are not in part indirect methods of paying, they are in whole indirect methods of paying. And considering you said "Fuel, cars, land, and other big ticket items are now sold directly with Bitcoin" - you are wrong.
And no, a credit card is not "indirectly paying" either. It's directly paying as it is a direct transfer of funds from one party to another. Indirect is something like Paypal with an intermediary collecting the funds. And all those other options you mentioned are also indirect.
I don't think you'll find that Hognoxious was claiming at all that the salary was the reason for the bankruptcy. I think you'll find that he was claiming that with the company going bankrupt, odds are that the CEO wasn't worth what he was being paid. Many a company in the hands of competent management has been brought back from the brink of the abyss, and I don't think you'll find anyone arguing against those people being paid a fair amount (e.g. Air New Zealand, once bankrupted and salvaged by government intervention, now turns over close to $200m in profit per year - the CEO gets about $1.9m per year. By contrast Qantas, now quarter of a billion in the red, pays their CEO $5m per year),
If by "now" you mean "not" then sure. Because you most certainly can not buy fuel, cars or land with Bitcoin. And you certainly can't remit the taxes on those sales using it.
Yes, but if you renounce your citizenship, you're required to have citizenship somewhere else first. At which point, your new-found patron nation is required to defend you.
Physically no, but economically, very much yes. Companies going bankrupt results in layoffs (more unemployed people), defaults (more suppliers not getting paid for deliveries they've made), and the flow on effects of layoffs and defaults.
Let me guess... you're a Ron Paul supporter?
I very much doubt Tim Cook is the person that makes those kinds of decisions. It's likely more in the CFO's realm than the CEO.
Dafuq are you on about? It's spent mostly to acquire natural resources on behalf of ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc. 99% of those trading partners that you haven't invaded would be surprised to hear that you're defending them, mostly because you aren't.
No, no they do not have a legal responsibility to maximise ROI. They only have a legal responsibility to not piss away the money they have, and to manage it in the way they say they do in the company's formation documents.
That is true about fiduciary duty. However, there is still no legal requirement to maximise profits at all costs - this is a lie that is constantly trotted out. The fiduciary obligation of a company is generally detailed in its constitution (or other formative document) - for example in NZ there are companies whose constitutions explicitly state that they may on occasion make decisions that are not in the best interests of the company OR shareholders, where it will benefit only tribes of indigenous people.
Basically, a company's obligation is to state upfront how they manage funds (e.g. in their prospectus), and it's your responsibility to Do Your Own Research.
Yup. Here in NZ, all Apple purchases are from Apple Australia, Google sales are from Google Ireland, and Microsoft sales are from Microsoft Singapore. All three of these companies have local subsidiaries that refuse to do business with local companies.