You are very funny - but completely confused as from your response do not have much security experience. I like the kill switch ideal but I do not think it is will be effective.
You are assuming "the company" is the only ones going to be able to utilize the kill switch functionality. This is a very big assumption and usually wrong. You are assuming the controls work the way they are design. Experience people realize that controls can be bypass and functionality access in different way then was expected. Just because you think it needs to be activated by a company does not mean it can not be activated by someone else, or by a rogue company employee.
Let think that an employee go rogue and decides to kill the hardware by enabling the kill switch What is the value ofthe lost productivity to the business? Is the lost productivity acceptable? Hmmm are you going to be able to sell that to an executive that is evaluated on uptime? How much is it going to cost to replace? Is the kill switch functionality going to be able to be reverse? If so when the information is leaked or sold, how effective is the kill switch?
A few questions I dont think you thought about?
Professionals in the industry have criticized Intel for the killswitch...people with a lot more clout than "Clairvoyant" I assure you.
We all know this is a real problem. Whether you choose to ignore it or accept it is up to you. Your acceptance will only lead to more of this type of built-in hardware DRM however.
And can anyone see the benefit of the killswitch? Your desktop or laptop is stolen, so you activate the killswitch...how does this benefit you? It's not going to lead to getting your chip back. The thief can still remove your hard drive and access the data. The killswitch does not benefit the consumer in reality.