Cost Benefit Analysis yet again

Given the recent attacks all over the world by various fundamental groups, Governments have put in stringent restrictions on various aspects of people's lives. The US Patriot Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States. Here in Ireland, in the case of a financial transaction involving any sum greater than 5000 Euros, the bank must be informed one day in advance to scrutinize the transaction. The most recent example of such restrictions include the Indian Government's demands of the decryption of the Blackberry Messenger (BBM).
Now while most of us would be indifferent to the government reading our texts on BBM (not like most of us have mind-boggling secrets), significant number of corporate executives purchase RIM products precisely for the BBM - the encryption ensures that there is some degree of protection for company sensitive information.
Should such sensitive information fall in the hands of the government, who is to stop the gubernatorial officials from selling this information to a competitor? In other words, there is no check in place to prevent the guardian from betraying the ones he's protecting. Furthermore, in the case of corrupt governments (and I don't find the dearth of any), corporates may choose not to operate in case of sensitive information transfer - potentially affecting the country's economy.
However, the flip side to this is that not having such information would mean lack of access to potentially important information to prevent the aforementioned fundamental attacks. This is a cost-benefit analysis that the government (and in the case of a democracy, the people) must weigh - I honestly do not know the answer to this question. Ideally speaking ,the access to information and the prevention about another 26/11 should be worth it all... right?

Concerning "suffixes"

In today's day, I have observed an inherent clash in what is believed by parents, and what is believed by the daughter-in-law. And this clash holds true in some more of the more 'feminist' nations of the world as well.
A conversation with one of my closest friends, currently in the US, sparked this debate. In his words I quote - "She will take my last name after marriage - just the way it's supposed to be".
Now while I consider myself regressively progressive and not fully progressive (a spectrum discussion to be held at another time), I find the concept of a wife being forced to take the husband's name very inconvenient.
The primal reason for this belief is that girls these days have studied and traveled far more extensively than their counterparts in ye olde age (to put it very crudely). It becomes extremely inconvenient to have one last name be the marriage name, and another last name imprinted on the degrees, passport etc. Imagine having to produce a change of name certificate everytime just to prove that you are indeed the right person referred to. Status quo, the documents required are enough of a hassle. Add to this hassle a bureaucratic nightmare such as India, and we well and truly have insanity in the making. This case also holds true in matriarchal societies where the guy changes his last name as opposed to the girl changing hers.
Should the guy / girl want to change his/ her last name (for whatever reason - respect, love, tradition - I am not here judge), I won't dissuade him / her, but I would like to point out that retaining the maiden name makes logical sense, not from a feminist (or chauvinist) POV, but just from a common sense POV...

The customer (significant other) is king / queen

With a little bit more free time now than before, I managed to have another (rather purposeful) conversation with someone very dear to me. THe following are quickly assembled thoughts before I rush off again...

He (my friend) was in the process of planning his departure and wanted a Euro debit card. The bank first informed him that he needed to have stayed in the country here for greater than 180 days in this fiscal year - turns out, this current fiscal year hasn't completed 180 days at all. The next condition imposed by the bank was that he should have stayed in the country for greater than 180 days in the last fiscal year as an Indian citizen - there was no mention of any form of PR status associated with it. My friend is a PR of Canada and that somehow diluted his Indian citizenship status (don't ask me how...). The banks then required him to show proof of his residence in the country as an Indian citizen for the past 5 years. The bank made a very big deal of his 'special situation' going by their rigid 'terms and conditions'. The story goes on before my friend decided it wasn't worth his time and effort to get the Euro debit card.

Given this special circumstances of my dear friend, the bank's "rule book" to deal with these special cirucmstances fell short miserably to say the least. What is the outcome of this little fiasco? He comes and complains to me; I, in turn, will inform all such folks of these problems associated with this particular bank, and this then becomes negative viral marketing for the concerned bank.

In a similar situation with me, I had called the Dominos store in Bangalore and asked to have 5 mexican wraps delivered costing ~400 INR. The manager of the store refused saying that a pizza must be ordered. I offered the manager a choice - either I will order one small pizza for INR 65 and one mexican wrap (~150 INR totally) or order the 5 wraps. His answer to me was shocking - he said "Sorry sir, our rules do not allow only wraps to be delivered." Needless to say, I hung up without ordering anything and the revenue for that night was non-existent!

In a day and age when customer is king / queen, how do companies lose focus and follow such rigid rule books? Why isn't there a check in place to ensure that flexibility in a direct POC with the customer?

Some may argue that the above cases are one-in-a-million cases. But what is the outcome of this? I will tell the story to whomever I can about this; in fact by merely posting this on my blog, 'n' number of people have already read it and formed an opinion about the inflexibility of Dominos.

Given that at this point of my life, I can reach 600 students at IIM Bangalore and given my penchant desire to eat food from outside, does this sort of behavior not cause more damage than desired to the company's reputation? It is necessary for the heads of organizations to ensure that the 'entpreneurial spirit' within the sales side of the organization is maintained. Why do organizations allow the 'customer is king' concept to get lost in rules and bureaucracy?

Those who know me best know that this isn't a random rant, but one with a purpose - and that purpose is this: If I was to equate this to a marriage, where does the 'spark' in the marriage die off (which can be equated to flexibility within an organization growing through its entrepreneurial stages to its formalization stage)? Why do couples not take care to ensure that the spark endures on, especially given today's hectic life style? Allthemore since people I speak to tell me there is a honeymoon phase, and then it dies off into routine and boredom... IF people are aware, then why aren't necessary steps taken I wonder...