Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I refuse to use Dropbox after Condoleezza Rice was appointed to their board.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/protests-continue-a...

I hope these protests hurt Dropbox's image and business and they replace Rice with someone who isn't a war criminal.




Dropbox could end world hunger and bring peace to the world and we'd still have people who wouldn't accept it. This is about an addition to their API. We don't care if you think she's the spawn of Satan.


Hypocritical much? Why do you speak for the whole HN? The community clearly does care as evidenced by a number of comments about Rice in this thread.


It needs to be brought up in every Dropbox thread, and voted to the top comment. There is literally no valid use case for Dropbox, everyone using it needs to give it up for something else, and anyone who hasn't been made aware of that needs to be.

Even if they end world hunger.


Yea all that talk and she is still there. Clearly it didn't have any kind of impact. Either people didn't follow through or they were free accounts which they probably don't mind losing anyways.


What boggles my mind is that there are many people who would pillory the guy who got canned at Mozilla because he gave $1000 to people to fear-monger about LGBTs, who gets multiple few-hundred-comment threads, but we talk about someone who could charitably be described as a war criminal, and also add ardent supporter of NSA surveillance and such, (i.e. things a lot more harmful and important than marriage equality) and the outrage is so lukewarm as to be non-existent.

I really don't get the culture here sometimes. Eich gets hung out to dry (which is something I still agree with, for the record) but Rice more or less gets a free pass, despite Rice having been responsible/complicit in a hell of a lot more evil in the world?


What boggles my mind is how a group of smart people decide that having her join the board is even remotely a good idea. Even if you want to pretend Iraq didn't happen - the NSA did and she was part of that. Just today - she was still supportive of the NSA. Just before her praise of the NSA Workday said everything needs to be done to stop them (read: our business is not going so well).

So we have an entire industry (Country really) who is screwed by this and they appoint her to their board. Either they are wrapped up in the idea of having a former high ranking political figure on their board or they just don't get it. Regardless from the outside it's not a very good look.


> What boggles my mind is how a group of smart people decide that having her join the board is even remotely a good idea.

On the merits, it's a really smart idea. She has connections and gives dropbox credibility in government circles (irrespective of political leanings)


Ultimately, the state doesn't give a shit if gays can get married or not, and fighting that battle is a lot easier once you get the population on your side - the state's position being basically that it will do whatever the population wants.

However you could have literally every single citizen outside of government, the bureaucracy, and the sociopaths set up to control both, opposed to the kind of surveillance Dropbox facilitates, and the state would still fight tooth-and-nail for it.

It's really a case of cowards picking their battles, and piling on when it's convenient.


"The state" is not arguing on HN, which is more what I was talking about. Where's the community outrage that happened when Eich's donations came out? The politicos had nothing to do with that, it was all grassroots.


> I really don't get the culture here sometimes.

LGBT community has a very strong support network and is a visible target. In case of Rice, her evil-doing is less apparent and diffused. There's no "minority" to protect - everyone is affected - but not in a personal discriminating manner. Wars happen, but some place else. Surveillance happen, but we don't really see it. Hence, public reaction is a lot less emotional.


Consider that Mozilla is a non-profit that relies very much on the community goodwill, while Dropbox is a full-blown for-profit corporation that cares first and foremost about maximizing revenues.


We cancelled my premium account and my girlfriends premium account after we decided we could not support Dropbox's new direction.

Rice does not inspire confidence with a company handling private data.


Lets face it, the 'brand' of Dropbox has been tarnished by Rice.

Even if all the other cloud sync companies have to hand over data to the US Government, at least they aren't being so blase about it by putting Rice on their board.


I'm doubtful about paid accounts having a significant impact on their bottom line. Do they publish numbers on that?


I use DropBox and so does a lot of other people I know. Their decision to hire Condoleezza Rice does not affect my decision and obviously has no impact on the decision of many others.


How exactly is Rice a war criminal?


Thanks to Obama she will never be judged for the alleged crimes her and her pals commited.

But the reputation of USA as the leader of the free world is safe,we can now give the russians moral lessons.



Again, how exactly is Rice a war criminal? You linked to an OP-ED page. That's like linking to Greenpeace after someone asks what the benefits of Oil is to the World Economy.


The American invasion if Iraq, whose planning and execution Condeleeza Rice was involved in was clearly a violation of the UN charter, which prohibits aggressive action by one nation against another without the authorization of the UN Security Council.


I have no idea why you're being downvoted. It's not random trolls who're downvoting you either as this is HN...right?

Business is traditionally played as a game of market advantage/disadvantage. To Dropbox, Rice's international connections and political clout are far more valuable to them (obviously) than a few users throwing a hissy fit and dropping their service. Again, rather obviously, the method to change that view is if John Q. Public can create enough unrest and antagonism towards Rice, then that disadvantage outweighs the edge Rice brings.

There are two issues I see:

1. The power Rice brings to the table is ridiculously significant. Regardless of what she's alleged to have done, she is one of tens of western female political leaders. She has deep connections with major businesses within the US. Etc, etc, etc.

2. The article written at 'Drop-Dropbox' is full of strawmen arguments and subjective analysis. This, among other points, makes the article a piece of crap.

I don't really have the time, nor the willingness to actually pull apart the article, but I'll point out a few things:

"Choosing Condoleezza Rice for Dropbox's Board is problematic on a number of deeper levels, and invites serious concerns about Drew Houston and the senior leadership at Dropbox's commitment to freedom, openness, and ethics. When a company quite literally has access to all of your data, ethics become more than a fun thought experiment."

This is a slippery-slope argument, designed to instill fear into the reader. The author provides nothing of substance but insinuates: "Because Rice joined the Board of Dropbox, all of your data is going to be used for unethical (like what?) purposes". The author also shows a significant lack of understanding about how large corporate businesses work. The Board of Directors make broad, sweeping, general directions for the company to proceed in. In addition, if people are concerned with Rice making "unethical" decisions, keep in mind that there's a voting process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Exercise_of...) to keep power in check. Even further, once the company becomes publicly traded, a creation of a separate board who normally consist of outside members, are required to audit the company; this, in theory, prevents companies from "unethically" treating your data. Now even though this paragraph has nothing to do with the NSA and associated programs, I'm sure if anybody responds, it's going to be the first thing out of their mouth. To this I respond: Rice is not the US government. Much less, she's not even part of the NSA.

I'll point out another annoyance I've noticed: Strawmen Arguments.

Statements like:

"She helped start the Iraq War"

"She was involved in the creation of the Bush administration's torture program"

"Rice was on the Board of Directors at Chevron"

All are designed to instill fear, hatred, and disgust towards Rice. But really?...

Americans, Canadians, British, French, German, Australian, etc, etc, etc all helped to start the Iraq War. Americans are especially guilty. If anybody was around during 9/11, I'm sure we can all recall the fear and anger we had towards the suicidal fundamentalists who piloted planes into the Towers. Now, I'm not one to call for war, but I can remember that I wanted to do anything and everything in my power to hit back (somehow) at those who caused me and my country pain and harm.

Same can be more or less said for the other 'headlines' but I care far too little about changing a few random stranger's thoughts over the internet.

Thanks.


Are you really sure the French helped to start the Iraq War?

More seriously, I think it is reasonable to prefer that tech companies stay away from political figures. Suppose Rice was appointed by Google or Facebook instead of Dropbox. Or maybe George W. Bush himself. Wouldn't you feel unconfortable?

I would. Not because of Bush or Rice are right or left, did this or that, but just because they are politicians, belonging to another world. We, hackers of the tech industry, should not let them in. It is bringing the wolf to the sheepfold. A rotten fruit in the plate.

Not to say that our industry is clean: it already has enough of politics and guys with blood on their hands. We should just avoid getting more of them.

I would certainly prefer an ex-drug dealer or an ex-pimp to become member of the board of some cherished tech company than even the most seemingly innocuous politician.

Maybe I am a bit extreme, but it is probably expressing what some other people feel. So, even if Rice had a cleaner record, it would still be not ok to join Dropbox' Board.


The point is that politicians are so entrenched in the establishment that the conflict of interest in inevitable.


Americans, Canadians, British, French, German, Australian, etc, etc, etc all helped to start the Iraq War. Americans are especially guilty.

This is a sweeping and completely unfair generalization. Plenty of Americans opposed the war, as the hundreds of thousands of protesters in major cities (300-400k just in NYC) at the time showed. The polls didn't show an overwhelming majority support for the war either.


She's not, of course. The people who claim she is tend to be pushing a fantasy concept of international law.


So you're saying "There is no such thing", not "She's not one of them". At least be consistent with your argument.


Nope, that's not what i'm saying at all.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: