Your read on this case, Mike, is a bit off. It had nothing to do with a copy of Windows 8, but source code relating to the Volume Activation mechanics in Windows 8/Server 2012. This is a REALLY BIG DEAL to people like me running open activation systems that would then be exploitable. They made a promise to other customers, paying customers, that they would do everything in their power to keep that code secure.
How they did it is one thing, and you can be against that, but claiming that they did not have a VERY good reason for doing so is intellectually dishonest.
This is actually a problem with the CFAA that makes your email sitting on a server the companies problem. I guarantee they are correct that there is no way to subpoena emails you legally own. Remember, in US cloud services the provider owns that data because of the antiquated law. Fix it! They shouldn't, and MS should require a court order to search it.
Why in the world would Netflix buckle to this. They get extra revenue without having to even compete in the region, costs them nothing and banning VPNs would be extremely difficult and privacy destroying for their paying customers. All for a country they don't have a presence in. Yeah, gonna happen for sure....
As some commenters have noted this is a lot less about MITM attacks than it is about transparent proxies. And there are already solutions that solve this problem, they are just in a layer above the protocol so are expensive from a processing standpoint.
In order to implement this the proxy manager would have to have admin access to the OS to configure the trusted prox. Unless ISPs make this mandatory to use their systems (unlikely) it shouldn't affect public users that much. And if ISPs do make it mandatory then almost everyone would freak out since it would compromise SSL universally including SSTP/SSL VPNs and banking sites. If you think Bank of America is going to allow lesser companies to increase the risk on their books you haven't been paying attention.
Here's a quick definition of net neutrality along with a handy example, for all those ignorant journalists out there:
A neutral network is one where filtering is performed at the protocol layer and not at the application layer. So filtering 'internet video' is not an example of neutrality violation, but filtering 'netflix' would be, if YouTube was left alone.
Someone streaming house of cards from anywhere other than Netflix either has a VERY specific reason for doing so, or is an idiot. Neither situation is going to be resolved by Google changing their algorithms.
Harboring murderous thoughts about an American citizen should be grounds for loss of security clearance. It would certainly be grounds for not getting one should those errant whims come up in the psych screening...
Funny enough, I seem to recall a similar conversation happening when people started abandoning local news broadcasts for The Weather Channel, saying that the weather information would be too general, or incorrect for their region and it would cause lots of issues.
Fact is, TWC is far less valuable a service than it was even pre-smartphone (let alone pre-internet).
Also, they should be VERY careful about saying how calamitous the result of them not being on air would be. If they are so critical to the survival of the nation they should be nationalized and turned into a utility. Good thing for their shareholders they really aren't that important....
I always thought when someone has a restraining order against you, it details that you cannot be within X feet physically, or directly contact the person. You can, however, use a 3rd party to contact that person (such as a lawyer, accountant etc) otherwise a restraining order would be a license to steal from someone. It seems to me that Google is a 3rd party, and as long as the Circles invite were a standard form (ie, he did not customize the invitation) it should be open and shut.