They can also require web filtering and surveillance software, of course. In many schools, this kind of software, web filtering (including filtering of proxies and category of SSL-based websites) is ACTUALLY REQUIRED in the US, for many schools to keep funding under various federal programs -- eg E-rate.

Sure, there are things that may be tweaked by the school, but the are laws setting the basic boundaries for such modifications.

Well, they are perfectly within their rights to provide a policy of "No laptops allowed past this point", at the door.

Anything less is a concession on their part. In the case of your physical PERSON, they can't require arbitrary concessions, such as body cavity searches without infringing on people's rights.

With laptops however; they can require arbitrary modifications or standards of their choosing, before the laptop is permitted access.

Fully updated, not running an EOL operating system such as Widnows XP, No infections present and working antimalware, would be some common restrictions.

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.

Frankly after the terms that Google put out with Android AND the story on how Google is taking more and more of Android proprietary by taking critical APIs behind the "GoogleWall" I honestly do not see how any sane person can't see that Google IS Microsoft of the 90s.

Seriously folks, how can anyone argue that they aren't the same company? Blocking competition? See TFA and about a dozen other articles on Google pulling products with threats of being kicked out of having access to the OHA and Google Apps. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? Hell Android is practically a textbook case of that, while Android 1 and 2 and ASOP were practically identical now there is a good chunk of the android games and apps that will not run on ASOP without being recompiled and in many cases rewritten. Trying to lock in? For God's sake they take bog standard X86 laptops and when they are done with them they are more fucking locked down than a cellphone! Hell even the latest windows allows you to fricking dual boot but not ChromeOS!

I'm sorry but while Google USED to be this great "throw shit at the wall and see what cool shit we get" kind of company as with sadly too many companies greed and the desire to keep the stock price high has turned them nasty. Maybe its a universal law of business or something, you get to be #1 and you turn nasty and greedy as you fight to stay top dog.

And with my city's regulations on the disposal of electronic waste, humans are easier to get rid of when they wear out as well.

Just give them a gold watch (RoHS compliant, of course) and kick them out the door.

Yes. It gives people some interesting insight into the culture of such an organization. The general public gets an idea of how insulated from mainstream society and ethics these employees have to be kept in order to remain functional in their jobs.

The alternative would be hoping that your employees obfuscate details of their job functions when writing to Dear Abbey. "How do I tell the guy in the next cubicle not to laugh out loud every time he reads Angela Merkel's e-mails?" Beyond that, handling basic ethical and moral issues need to be handled differently. How would you explain to a parent and NSA employee that their teenage kid needs some personal space and trust as they grow up when you are logging all of their text messages, e-mail and phone conversations?

Google can deny you from adding Google's apps and services on it, though, and the moment you ship an Android-device without those you're removing a lot of the reason for why an Average Jane or Joe would want an Android-device in the first place.

Given the normal response patterns when someone complains at a Linux installation your inability to install the free Classic start menu feels odd.

This is a Microsoft-unsupported shell tweaking application that Microsoft can break at any time.

I don't want to support Windows 8 by purchasing, UNTIL the user experience is good out of the box.

'pretty sure that information within Google is now safe from any government's prying eyes.

It doesn't work if their last round of spying got them the root password, and the backdoors planted.

They can still infiltrate the companies' datacenter employee staff with their own operatives.

And another mechanism at their disposal -- is, of course, lawful orders together with gag orders.

anyone who 'photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils' a person's sexual or intimate parts without consent should face a misdemeanor charge.

Anyone who videotapes, OR.... ?

Step 1. Run naked across the field of view of the camera "accidentally"
Step 2. See the camera, call the police
Step 3. Press charges against property owner for violation of upskirt law
Step 4. Profit

The crime becomes a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - if the accused secretly takes indecent photographs of anyone under the age of 18."

Double-score if you're a 17-year-old obnoxious young lady; now the fixed camera operator will become a felon.

Also, it isn't "Mt. Gox". It's "Magic, the Gathering online exchange".

Totally emphasizing their proper place in the world --- trading Magic cards, not currency.

Although, I suppose if they hadn't shortened it --- they could be at risk of trademark action against them from the owners of the Magic the Gathering game.

I'm guessing that it has something to do with the fact that you are giving your hard-earned money to an unknown source to be looked over by unknown people by unknown means?

Perhaps that would be a bad decision, and those considering it have done more research to turn 'unknowns' into knowns.

Federal law has said the exact and complete opposite, at least since the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and other related acts.

Just another armchair Slashdot lawyer, spouting off irrelevent cases and laws which don't apply to the situation.

Service providers with a contractual relationship for providing a service, are not beholden to laws that govern the warranties for manufactured consumer products. There is no warranty in the first place, in such arrangements.

Sometimes this slowing down is an especially good thing as it makes a more dependable product.... unfortunately MS didn't slow down Windows development fast enough, so we got left with this Metro garbage

Wake me up, when they concede to bring the Windows 7 start MENU back.

That may be written in the contract, but it would never stand up in court.

Service provider contracts are not subject to the courts, but binding arbitration is nearly a universal requirement among all the major service providers.

You can't rent out defective products, then instead of fixing them during their mandatory warranty period, *charge* the customer for the broken equipment and additional fees.

Unless the consumer can prove that it's defective, then, yes you can, and most all the major service providers will not provide free replacements for equipment apparently damage by the customer OR by lightning or other environmental problems that are the customer's responsibility.

And you've got a high burden to prove that the customer's actions caused irreparable damage.

The service providers don't have to prove it, once they've made their determination to fine for damages, that's that. The burden of proof rests with the customer of the service providers, after the service providers' team made the determination.