If Microsoft was to be treated as a hostile country, not a hostile company . . .
Amazing, the way Microsoft is allowed to get away with whatever its ruling elite wish. With a financial turnover the size of a small nation's economy, there's no reason why Microsoft could not be viewed as a hostile country -- and dealt with as such. Its track record over recent years has been to:
1) Invade millions of computers worldwide;
2) Install software the content of which it refuses to divulge;
3) Place telemetry on those computers so as to monitor user behaviour;
4) Attempt by systematic fraud to replace a computer owner's OS of choice with one of its choosing (and in many thousands of instances, achieve exactly that objective);
5) Repeatedly disrupt the operation of a user's computer with secret unsought modifications;
6) Consistently lie about its practices.
This latest example is one of the most telling, because no legitimate reason exists for Microsoft to be messing around with a computer user's internet connectivity. Illegitimate reasons, however, abound. . .
Invasive. Secretive. Disruptive. And dedicated to covert surveillance . . . If Microsoft were to be treated as a hostile country rather than the hostile company it now so clearly is, there'd be plenty of talk on both sides of the Atlantic about how best to deal with it: disrupting its international trade; freezing its assets; putting its leadership on travel black-lists, etc etc.
Looking at today's mainstream meeja headlines though, all I see is yet more tut-tutting about that awful Mr Putin, that nasty Russia, and how it keeps hacking politicians' emails. I have yet to see any reportage of that malignant nation state called Microsoft, one which after hacking computers -- never mind emails -- for so long is now actually breaking 'em.
Plenty on here have said, fuck Microsoft. Seems to me, prosecuting Microsoft would be considerably more satisfying.