Drop Dropbox - <AUTHOR> http://www.drop-dropbox.com/ <comment><USER6> Think about what it means to the HN culture to have a subject that normally would have been flagged out of existence as overtly political suddenly be featured front and center in the apparent belief that ideological purity is now a litmus test for who can serve on a board of directors in the startup world.

In a free society, people can unite in their business ventures even though they might be far apart in how they view the world generally. Startup culture thirty years ago had a decidedly American flavor. Today, it does not because the world is big and diverse and because entrepreneurs today who do startups come from all sorts of cultures and backgrounds. Surely, those who come from such divergent backgrounds hold differing political and religious views. Some are conservative, others liberal, still others apolitical. Some are theists, others atheists. The variations are many but one thing is certain: _not all people think alike on political, religious, or social topics_. These are issues that inherently will divide.

What happens, then, when people attempt to set political, social, or religious tests as criteria for who can hold important positions in a business organization? Well, it gets about as ugly as it can get, just as such tests proved ugly when used historically by, say, Christians to exclude Jews from holding important positions in society or to punish atheists for not holding to some prescribed creed.

One might say, " _this_ is different" because we are not holding to an arbitrary creed but rather to fundamental principles that ought to govern all humanity. Well, that is precisely how those who sought to impose thought control in other eras rationalized their conduct. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party" is a question that destroyed many careers as the blacklists proliferated back in the 1950s. That was indeed a repulsive set of events by which many innocent persons were hurt and today our national conscience wishes it could take back the damage done to them.

So why is this any different? It is easy enough to whip oneself up into a lather over Ms. Rice's policies if one disagrees with them but what about the half of America (or whatever significant percentage) that does not. And why should this be relevant to board service?

Politics, religion, and social worldviews _divide_ people and have no place as limiting tests in a business environment. Scolding and finger-wagging was bad enough coming from a first-grade teacher trying to promote sanctimonious values back in the 1950s. Do we really want a counterpart agenda now setting rules for who can be a founder, who can be an investor, who can be a director, who can be a CEO, or who can otherwise take a prominent role in the startup world? The answer should be an _emphatic_ no.

Principle is more important here than a particular outcome. What happens with Ms. Rice is not the issue here. What matters is upholding the abiding principle (precious in a free society) that people can hold divergent views on such topics as politics, religion, and society without being punished for their views in a business context. People can and ought to be able to unite to form great companies without having to compare notes on how they voted in the last election or some similar matter having nothing whatever to do with whether someone can add value to the venture. This is central to startup culture. Let us not lose sight of something so basic.

<comment><USER7> Starting an unnecessary war is a big deal. Denying due process and torturing detainees is a big deal. The Patriot Act was one of the most un-American acts of Congress. Rice had a significant role in destroying the values I once thought were vitally important in claiming American exceptionalism. We can never get that back. We are now a country that starts unnecessary wars, tortures detainees and denies due process and spends vast resources on surveilling every citizen and she had a role in that. We will never be the country we once were before Rice and the Bush administration. I am proud to have always been vocally against the war, torture and the Patriot Act. I will continue to oppose the people who led these efforts and oppose anything they are involved with, staying true to my own personal values requires this.

<comment><USER8> > I am proud to have always been vocally against the war, torture and the > Patriot Act. I will continue to oppose the people who led these efforts and > oppose anything they are involved with, staying true to my own personal > values requires this.

I hope this extends to opposing the Obama administration, which has continued and extended war, torture, and the patriot act. If the tech community dumps anyone from any party who supports these policies, that's awesome.

Marissa Mayer at Yahoo, Mark Benoiff at SalesForce, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt at Google all gave large contributions to Obama, who extended the patriot act, defended bush torture, and maintains a 'kill list' that took the life of an american citizen without trial. None of them are getting this kind of outrage.

I would love it if they were! I'd love it if we held these tech leaders accountable for the horrendous policies their supported leaders have put in place. You can't say you value your users' privacy and then give money to candidates who don't share that value, unless you say "but these other policies that he supports matter more to me" \- and then fine, give us a list of what you value more than protecting my privacy. Show me where I fall on this list of yours. A president who decides he supports gave marriage when it's poitically convient is not as important to me as a president who insists on defending my privacy.

So far this looks to be partisan. I hope it isn't. To be honest, I miss having GWB as a president, because then the smart people were all outraged at the horrible stuff the president was doing. Now the president is still doing the same horrible stuff, plus some new stuff, but the smart people aren't as upset anymore.

<comment><USER9> > I hope this extends to opposing the Obama administration, which has > continued and extended war, torture, and the patriot act.

Of course it does. That's the logical conclusion. Why wouldn't it? There isn't any informed person in 2014 who is unable to realize Obama has been worse than Bush as far as torture and war go.

<comment><USER10> > Obama has been worse than Bush as far as torture and war go

Please remind me how many wars did Obama start based on fake intelligence.

Obama may not be the president the world hoped he would be, but Bush is on a whole different league. If the US is much less secure today than it was before 9/11, you can thank Bush and his cronies (Rice included) for that. That situation also severely limits what your current president can do.

<comment><USER9> Bush isn't actively dropping bombs on schoolhouses. Bush isn't actively detaining and torturing people in black sites. These are things that were pioneered by Bush and perfected by Obama.

If you hate Bush, you need to hate Obama, or you're simply an unreasonable hypocrite. This isn't up for debate.

<comment><USER10> Bush started your country down a path that has led it towards unprecedented insecurity and cost countless lives, both Americans and foreigners, and he did it on a crucial moment when he had the option to act differently. Obama is left with little choice in a lot of regards - the world - and your country - is already the wreck Bush left us with. Just leaving Iraq on day one would lead the country to a certain civil war and most likely another yet theocracy that hates the US (and this one for reason I can completely understand). Just closing Guantanamo would unravel an insane chain of resentment that most probably should have been faced rather than postponed.

I hate neither. Bush was grossly incompetent. Spectacularly incompetent. Dangerously incompetent. Again, Obama is a huge disappointment, but I suspect he, under less grim circumstances, would have been a much better president than he is now. In so many ways, his hands are tied. A president - <USER2> president - is limited in his actions to what's legally and politically possible and that severely restricts his actions. Even with his hands tied, Obama is light years ahead of his predecessor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm not American, so this is a little removed for me. In truth I don't really see big enough (non cosmetic) differences between the parties or administrations to justify the partisanship you guys seem to have.

What bother me here is not Condoleezza Rice specifically. Every ranking official of any country (or company) owns a big share of that country's sins and there are no "clean" administrations. Complicity is the price of admission and they all pay.

What _does_ bother me is what this is a symptom of. Lets be honest about why board members are selected. Ex politicians wield political and corporate influence and a board seat is a way of renting that influence. At best its an elite club, at worst it's outright corruption but its always on that scale.

I guess that if pressed they would say that they bring experience and competence. That's as nonsensical as a large corporation justifying their political donations as an innocent, democratic expression of political preference. It's hard to say with a straight face.

Having ex politicians on a board is such a public display of stink. It's like when a politician who spends his entire life as a "civil servant" is obviously and publicly living a billionaire lifestyle with yhahts, mansions & private jets. They don't even bother to launder that dirty money. It's just displayed filth and all.

<comment><USER12> The bush administration asserted that it could detain anyone without a trial and torture them. This is not equivalent to any average administration as you implied.

<comment><USER13> The current administration asserted that it has the right to assassinate anyone it wants, American citizen or not, outside of a battlefield, without any oversight or due process.

<comment><USER14> Could you provide a source for this? There is an entire process that is full of oversight.

<comment><USER15> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al- Awlaki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki) is the case most people bring up. Killed by a drone strike without due process, but nobody claims that he was anything but a terrorist.

<comment><USER16> And his US-born US citizen 16-year old son was killed in a separate strike. Nobody claims he was a terrorist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with most of the opposition to Condi Rice wrt the illegal war, warrantless wiretaps, torture, etc. On the other hand, I threw a hissy fit over the opposition to Eich based on his beliefs. I'm not sure how I can oppose Rice while standing up for Eich without inconsistency.

Anybody else feel conflicted and have some insight? I'm still probably going to cancel my Dropbox membership simply because I have free 100gigs google drive that I got when I bought my chromebook [1] and this gives me a great excuse to transfer over and save some money. But I don't know that I can go on the same kind of crusade for which I faulted the Eich lynch mob.

[1] Free 100 gigs google drive when you buy a chromebook, which if you install crouton makes for a cheap, decently powerful linux machine (great deal!). I recommend the hp chromebook 14 with 4 gigs ram since it comes with free 200mb 4G tmobile internet every month for life.

<comment><USER18> Unlike Eich, Rice went far beyond simply holding beliefs and making donations. She held real power and used it in unconscionable ways.

Given the current climate, I find it incredible that a cloud storage company would be involved with someone who actually wiretapped members of the UN Security Council. It's almost like they're saying "thanks for all the data, oh and f __* you ".

<comment><USER19> Yeah, Eich donated $1,000 to a campaign. Rice _ran the campaign_.

<comment><USER20> And one campaign was to deny a group the legal right to marry, while the other was to kill thousands of people. Neither is particularly wholesome, but I think there is a difference in scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Consider that when acting under uncertainty, intelligent, informed people of good will can examine the same set of facts and reach different conclusions.

It has become an article of faith that the Bush administration acted in bad faith about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong.

How intelligent, well educated people be so wrong, unless they were secretly evil? Groupthink for one, and in particular _a failure to consider alternatives because of assumption of bad faith on the part of those who disagree with them._

I really don't care one way or another whether Condi is on the board of Dropbox or not, and I applaud you for refusing to do business with a company you believe is immoral. But I would be surprised (pleasantly) if this was a standard you were applying consistently, thoughtfully and evenly.

<comment><USER22> One thing I can't stand is about our hyper-partisan culture is that attacking someone from one side is seen as 100% political and there are posts like these that are trying to be "even" when, in fact, it's you yourself that is being partisan here.

>It has become an article of faith that the Bush administration acted in bad faith about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong.

[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?...](http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?_s=PM%253Cimg%2520src=)

It has been shown, conclusively, that they lied, that they lied knowingly, and that they lied a lot. Don't white wash history in an attempt to be "even" or see "both sides". There is objective truth here.

<comment><USER21> The article you point to, to be clear, relies on reports from two non-profit (not _not_ non-partisan) journalism watchdogs. And what they come up with is 'false statements'. They won't go so far as to call them lies, because to be a lie the statement has to be believed to be false by the speaker.

You seem to reach the conclusion that it is inconceivable that the Bush Administration believed their own arguments. I not only find conceivable, I think its probably likely. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. There's certainly room for moral revulsion for the Bush Administration -- negligently acting to cause destruction and loss of life at such a scale makes one culpable nonetheless.

I am not interested in arguing the WMD in Iraq debate. I ask you to please assume good faith on the part of your ideological opponents. Try to understand their arguments on their terms, and see where you differ fundamentally.

<comment><USER22> >I am not interested in arguing the WMD in Iraq debate. I ask you to please assume good faith on the part of your ideological opponents. Try to understand their arguments on their terms, and see where you differ fundamentally.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you assume they are my ideological opponents? Are you assuming I'm a liberal in this case? This is the hyper-partisan culture I'm talking about. I do assume good faith from people who disagree with me, there comes a point when an intelligent person must look at the evidence provided and adapt their view. People hide behind the "both sides" argument in an attempt to be wise and fair, when in reality that can be the most partisan of all point of views. People are wrong sometimes. People lie sometimes. Not acknowledging this is not wise. Some arguments don't have "both sides", some have one side, some have two sides, some have fifty sides. Remember that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _When looking to grow our board, we sought out a leader who could help us expand our global footprint._

Condoleezza sure left a global footprint in the Middle East alright. Hate do this Dropbox, but time for me to move on.

Edit: Suggestions for a Dropbox substitute?

<comment><USER24> We have been using [https://copy.com](https://copy.com) without any issue.

<comment><USER25> It's an American company (Barracuda Inc.)

<comment><USER26> Any no bullshit European companies that can match the quality of Dropbox software?

I hate that I even have to make decisions like this, what the fuck kind of world are we living in.

<comment><USER27> Try hubic ([https://hubic.com/en/](https://hubic.com/en/)), they are a French company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm as anti-war as the next guy; we military veterans tend to be more so than most, and I've gotten even more so as I've gotten older. Still, there are those who appreciate that:

(A) political leaders aren't supermen and -women. Like all of us, they have to make the best decisions they can with the limited information available to them at the time;

(A1) [ADDED:] the signal-to-noise ratio can be problematic; the available bits of information are often of varying quality and sometimes are flatly contradictory --- a major part of the leadership challenge is figuring out what the hell is really going on;

(B) most political leaders genuinely want to do a good job, even if that's mixed in with a larger- or smaller dollop of self-interest (as is the case with most of us);

(C) in late 2002 and early 2003, memories of 9/11 were still raw;

(D) Saddam Hussein had irrefutably demonstrated that he was willing to use weapons of mass destruction in pursuit of his ambitions: he had used chemical weapons both on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians (and let's not forget his brutal conquest of Kuwait);

(E) it was unclear to what extent Hussein had made any progress on building -- or buying -- nuclear weapons;

(F) the downside of a false negative on that issue was considerable; and

(G) hindsight is 20-20, and there are _always_ Monday-morning quarterbacks around who are certain they could have done better.

<comment><USER29> Sorry, but tempered reasoning like this is not acceptable in the maximalist society we have today. You must be absolutely certain about every issue and realize that those who disagree are evil, intentionally so, full-stop.

<comment><USER26> > You must be absolutely certain about every issue

When was the last time you were _absolutely certain_ about something? Are you always _absolutely certain_ in your day to day life, let alone in the shoes of someone like Rice?

<comment><USER30> WHOOSH

<comment><USER31> Right over his head and out of the park.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The pictures on drop-dropbox sites are self-explanary and exponentally stronger, than common comments on why tech X shall be avoided I come across every day.

That is first time a "stop using tech X" site made me change my opinion.

Fully supporting. Those who are searching for alternatives - try out BitTorrent Sync. I have been using it for a while, will pull a plug on Dropbox acc.

</comment><comment><USER33> Dropping Mozilla because Eich is anti-gay-marriage made sense to me because Mozilla is the beacon of open source. Mozilla belongs to us in a very personal way, many of us have contributed code to Firefox personally.

But Condi Rice joining a completely private Dropbox as a board member - <USER3> is a non-issue. I'm as strongly anti-Bush administration and anti-war in general (especially the Iraq War - good grief) as anyone you could hope to meet, but this is ridiculously naive and short sighted to think that Condi being involved with Dropbox is something to get excited about. There are SO many people involved with private companies that are so much more partisan and support with no hesitation so many terrible things that if you want to go down this rabbit hole, you're going to be down there for a while my friends.

Edit: that Condi Rice is a "privacy" concern - ok. Fine. I think that's ridiculous but you know what - nothing is particularly ridiculous when it comes to privacy anymore. So I will accept that argument.

<comment><USER34> This sounds like holding non-profits to higher standards than corporates. That seems a strange and grossly unfair thing to do, ultimately counterproductive to the very purpose of non-profits.

Of course, when it comes to their core values you have to hold non-profits to high standards - e.g. Mozilla on the open web.

But when it comes to things unrelated to their mission... Why should they be any more perfect than a for-profit corporation!

I like people holding organizations to high standards, its fantastic. But please, hold _all_ of them to high standards - both for-profits and non- profits.

<comment><USER35> This is rapidly turning very ugly, and I can't stand it. Is being "anti-gay" or "pro-war" or even just "republican" the new Communism? The new witchcraft?

<comment><USER26> I hope so. We're moving into a phase where there you can grab information about anything, from nearly anywhere, at almost any time. There is little advantage to decision making based on cemented ideals anymore. This new era has exposed the good and bad in all facets of life. It's no longer about republicans, or communists, or this, or that, it's just about life.

I prefer to remain non-partisan and instead look at things as a complete outsider, just as a regular human being without any rooted loyalty in any one system or another.

If a company hires a shitty person, and people start dropping their service like flies, and that company reconsiders, then we're moving in a good direction, and I view my "vote" of not sticking with Dropbox more as a single ballot to living in a more informed and refined society.

 _I really hope somebody replies and lets me know why I 'm wrong rather than just sitting here at -2. Please don't turn HN into Reddit :(_

<comment><USER36> Situational morality is really not morality at all.

<comment><USER26> And that is what I am trying to move to, because no two situations are exactly alike. Choose the correct weapon for the job.

<comment><USER35> So, do you own a PC?

If so, how can you possibly justify that?

After all, IBM helped the Nazis, so everything they touched is morally tainted.

(And no, I'm not Godwinning, just pointing out how absurd the line of thinking is when taken to extremes)

<comment><USER26> Yeah that's fair, but none of the original founding members are still active within IBM, so the intent has essentially been burnt out. They are remnants long forgotten.

Condoleezza Rice however, is still alive and well, and is actively on the Dropbox board. The decision is easy to make, so I made it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> To my mind, the most relevant issue here is that someone asked Rice something along the lines of "Should we illegally wiretap these people" and Rice then said "Yes." It seems clear that she believes the government, law enforcement, etc. should have access to whatever data they feel that they need.

With her on the board of Dropbox, it seems reasonable to fear that she'll err on the side of providing data to government and law enforcement rather than fighting to keep Dropbox data private. This alone strikes me as a good reason to want her off the board and, consequently, to move to another product.

I don't see this as being a direct parallel to the issues around Eich and Mozilla. In that situation, many people didn't feel that his personal beliefs and personal behavior would materially effect the quality of Firefox or it's feature set. In this case, it seems we're talking about almost the opposite situation: wondering how a person's past professional behavior and views they publicly held while in their past professional roles might effect their decisions in their new business role.

</comment><comment><USER38> I don't get this kind of stuff. I'm sure it's based on good intentions, but this will just lead to MORE nepotism and less transparency because the price of negative press is that much greater.

It feels similar to the hit on the Mozilla guy, which really rubbed me the wrong way. For all I know he clubs baby seals in his free time, but nobody bothered to investigate the truth until it was too late.

One individual or group, finally crawling out of being persecuted, deciding to persecute another is just plain disgusting.

<comment><USER39> To me, this feels totally different from the Eich case. His political beliefs has nothing to do with Mozilla's product. However, giving someone who approves of wiretaps an important position in a company that people trust with their data, seems like an unbelievably bad idea.

It's not just about whether someone in the company has an opinion I find despicable, it's about whether my own data is still safe.

<comment><USER40> She's an independent board member. She does not have the ability, in practice, to do anything other than vote on compensation and various other corporate policies.

And if all it takes to get dropbox execs to turn over data is fiscal threats from a board member who is a _former_ government employee, then they were going to give up long before Condi shows up on the board.

EDIT: and I just want to be clear. If you just don't like the idea of having someone who was involved with the war in Iraq/Afghanistan on the board of a company, you're entitled to your opinion (though I think it's pretty hard to be secretary of state or any other position of power in the govenrment without being involved in _something_ evil).

But I find the idea that somehow Condi's presence on the board an indicator that they'll disclose my data to the government borderline ludicrous.

<comment><USER39> But why is she a board member? Who hired her? You make it sound like she was forced on Dropbox by outside forces, and they completely disagree with her. In reality, Dropbox hired her, so they do not completely disagree with her.

It's not just about Rice, it's about what this says about Dropbox.

<comment><USER40> I did not mean to give the opinion that I thought Dropbox was forced to hire Condi. Nor did I intend to suggest that Dropbox agrees or disagrees with her.

Here's what I _think_. I think Dropbox said, "As we try to beef up our credibility with large enterprises and government agencies vs. Box.net and Google and other companies, it would be helpful if we had a board member with some street cred that we could use as a selling point with large CEOs, CIOs, and other senior tech people".

This is not an uncommon thing. At that point, you look out across the landscape of "famous people" you can put on your board. It can't be anyone who is affiliated with a competitor, and there's a lot of competitors. It has to be someone with name recognition who _also_ is willing to be a board member _and_ has some sort of leadership experience.

At some point, Condi's name cropped up with a few others, they met her, thought she was smart, she had the time and availability, and they brought her on.

I bet someone at some point said, "Hey, you know, are we concerned with the affiliation with GWB?" and they thought about it they said, "Hey, look, she was SECRETARY OF STATE, the first female african american one, she's a former stanford professor, she's a genius, surely people will recognize that this is different than her work with GWB"

<comment><USER41> Thank you. Mrs Rice isn't what would make Dropbox unsafe, it's their lack of encryption and other insecure practises. A quick DuckDuckGo search yielded these articles:

[http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities-and- threats/dropb...](http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities-and- threats/dropbox-files-left-unprotected-open-to-all/d/d-id/1098442) [http://www.wired.com/2011/05/dropbox- ftc/](http://www.wired.com/2011/05/dropbox-ftc/) [http://thehackernews.com/2013/07/hacking-dropbox-account- vul...](http://thehackernews.com/2013/07/hacking-dropbox-account- vulnerability.html)

(This is just a semi-random selection.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Unless a company is actively hurting people, I'm going to choose what I use based on the quality of the product, not on a board member's past. Maybe they determined that a hardened political voice would balance them out in the boardroom. Maybe they need someone there to play the devil's advocate in an industry that can be extraordinarily narcissistic.

<comment><USER43> > Unless a company is actively hurting people, I'm going to choose what I use > based on the quality of the product, not on a board member's past

Seems like it did not work so well with Mozilla recently. And that guy there did not kill anyone either, even indirectly.

<comment><USER44> Uh we have all killed indirectly. Do you pay taxes?

<comment><USER43> I'm not American, and the country where I pay taxes does not wage wars in foreign countries as far as I know.

<comment><USER45> Have you ever bought a product/service from an American company?

<comment><USER43> I have, but it's significantly less than the amount of taxes I pay, and it's even less than the US government is getting in the end.

<comment><USER45> It may be a smaller amount, but it is voluntary. Paying taxes is not voluntary.

<comment><USER43> It's as voluntary as taking a shower everyday. I don't consciously think about where the product comes from when I buy stuff, especially when it comes to commodities. If you start doing that you can't buy stuff anymore and you have to grow your own stuff yourself and stop trusting everyone else on the planet :)

<comment><USER45> > If you start doing that you can't buy stuff anymore and you have to grow > your own stuff yourself and stop trusting everyone else on the planet :)

That's exactly my point. If you're assigning blame for something the US government did to someone because they paid taxes, then you can pretty much assign blame to everyone for everything. Oh, you went to Stanford during the '90s? Well Rice was provost then, so you helped pay her salary are therefore responsible for the deaths that occurred in the Iraq war. It's absurd.

<comment><USER43> I think you are extrapolating vs the original point. I was answering to :

> Uh we have all killed indirectly

Well, Rice has been certainly much more 'directly' involved in killing that the ones who paid taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Allow me to quote (gay rights activist) Andrew Sullivan, via The Economist, over the Eich issue. I think it mostly applies here -- [http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/04/to...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/04/toleration- dilemmas)

 _" The ability to work alongside or for people with whom we have a deep political disagreement is not a minor issue in a liberal society. It is a core foundation of toleration. We either develop the ability to tolerate those with whom we deeply disagree, or liberal society is basically impossible. Civil conversation becomes culture war; arguments and reason cede to emotion and anger."_

Also available at above link: select quotations from John Locke.

\--

Postscript. Oh, of course I'm going to be modded down for this. Civil conversation has been replaced with culture war. Well, maybe not culture war, but a close analogue. :P

<comment><USER47> > Postscript. Oh, of course I'm going to be modded down for this. Civil > conversation has been replaced with culture war. Well, maybe not culture > war, but a close analogue. :P

Lets not get into that.

However, to your point: This is one of those areas where I'm forced to wonder just how strongly everyone felt. Did I like Eich representing me, as an open source contributor? No, certainly not. Did I feel _that_ strongly about it? No, not really. I wasn't going to boycott anything, I wasn't going to speak out against Mozilla. I'd be mildly disappointed he was their choice, then I would move on.

I sincerely have to wonder how many others would have felt the same if not worked into a lather.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Weren't John Kerry and Hillary Clinton arguably equally responsible for any war that Condy supported? The voted for the funds that made it possible, how is that less responsible for the results?

<comment><USER49> I didn't know they were on the board of directors of Dropbox. Very interesting.

Yes: a large percentage of the politicians in power today _are_ responsible for the heinous crimes against humanity being committed, even yet daily, in the name of the American people - and YES, you SHOULD hold them accountable, since - as an American - you, yourself, are _also_ responsible for the heinous actions of your nation state.

<comment><USER50> Sadly, most Americans don't hold themselves responsible for the actions of our duly elected leaders. It's how we sleep at night.

brb, dropping Dropbox...

<comment><USER51> Actually Rice has never held a democratically elected office - a strange trait of the American government system is that The President can appoint anyone he likes to hold these offices.

This counters to countries like Britain where these roles have to go to,democratically elected Members of one of the two Houses (usually the lower House of Parliament where the Prime Minister sits).

So assumeing Condeeleza Rice had some degree of agency in her role of Secretary of State, it's hard to even hold President Bush accountable for _all_ of her actions.

<comment><USER48> The check there is that all cabinet members have to be confirmed by the Senate, which are all elected officials.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> The Chevron example came out of left-field. While the other sections focused on actions or positions that Rice had taken, the Chevron anecdote would have us believe that Rice is an unethical person simply because she had a relationship with the company.

This is one of many unfair generalizations about energy companies. In reality, Chevron is one of the greatest contributors to alternative energy research. Without it and ExxonMobil, there wouldn't have been half as much progress toward sustainable power.

<comment><USER53> Well this is blatantly ignoring the anti-alternative energy contributions they've given. Although their own research may have contributed that much, the possible government funded research _if they had not lobbied against it_ would have been that much more.[1] They've deliberately stifled research that would directly contribute to non-oil based energies.

I mean, just imagine if the subsidies and tax cuts the oil companies get went instead to alternative energy research. We would be decades ahead of where we are now. Look at this 2008 article from PBS: [http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil- politics.html](http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html).

[1] [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-07...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-07-02/renewable- fuels-oil-congress/55987052/1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> The fact is that the IC (Intelligence Community) has infiltrated most companies of strategic intelligence value. That's not really up for debate. However, it's also clandestine and presumably against the foreknowledge of the infiltrated companies. While as user, these actions are concerning, it's understandable that infiltrated companies may not be willing divulging their customer's data. While it's easy to point fingers, I'm willing to look beyond a certain amount of corporate ignorance stemming from a pre-Snowden world.

In a post-Snowden world, continued ignorance of embedded security assets in the corporate infrastructure is no longer acceptable. I say this with some hesitation, as I'm friends with several such assets and wish no ill will toward them as individuals. Yet, it cannot be ignored that companies should be expected to limit their trust of those whom have sworn oaths in conflict with their corporate interests, especially when their actions have spoken louder than their words.

Condolezza Rice has repeatedly shown that her interests lie too close to the agenda of the Intelligence Community and are at conflict with the expectations of security and privacy that I expect of a service such as Dropbox.

This is what I told Dropbox when I deleted my account.

</comment><comment><USER55> Within the progressive community, and other activist communities from all sides (in and out of the US), there is a line of thinking that individuals should actively seek to do business with companies that share their values, use neutral companies when avoidable, and endure discomfort before using products of companies actively doing evil.

I think that before we can discuss the "hypocrisy" of this versus Mozilla, or of the merit of such protests, we should first ask ourselves whether we agree with the above statement as part of our core values.

After that, we can discuss what actions line up within the three categories, and if the actions of the company are equivalent to the actions of the leadership.

To _me_ , the Iraq issue is important, but it is not as important to me as my right to be a first class citizen of this society. My friends who work on the issue would have a different perspective.

Thus, to me, this is a warning indicator that Dropbox may not align with my values, and is worth investigating, but isn't worth making a quick decision. That said, I felt the same way about Mozilla.

Many of the comments that I've seen here are indirectly addressing this issue, but I think this is a value proposition that we each have to make within ourselves first.

</comment><comment><USER56> I am sure this has been brought up already.

Why would a company that can store people's potentially most sensitive documents want to bring someone on board that directly or indirectly was a part of shaping the NSA programs?

That boggles my mind. How does the conversation go in this situation? "Hey, we don't leak your information but guess what, we just brought someone on our board that fully believes taking a peek at your documents is A OK and was involved with making sure the government could take a look."

That to me is a bit mind boggling.

</comment><comment><USER57> A lot of people here seem to have absolutely no issue with saying "I have no problem with the ethical ramifications of a company's actions or choice of representatives or the beneficiaries of a company's wealth that my support helps grow". I can't tell if you're sociopathic or just utterly clueless. Not taking a 'moral stand' isn't business -- it's taking a moral stand of not caring. Culpability can stem from inaction as well.

</comment><comment><USER58> Even if Rice goes, I'm not going back. The board has already shown it's ugly face.

No amount of backtracking will convince me I didn't see what just happened.

</comment><comment><USER59> I'm floored by this news, and extremely disappointed with Dropbox. From the beginning I have been a huge proponent of Dropbox. I was lucky enough to get a free 50 GB account, and I use it for probably 30+ daily automated tasks. I will absolutely not be using Dropbox for any reason whatsoever if she remains on the board...I'm going to wait a week and see if they remove her and if not, bye bye.

</comment><comment><USER60> I was wondering how long this would take. Thoughtcrime is here. The quest for ideological purity is kneecapping our future. Shutting out half of the brainpool because they hold opposing views about disconnected topics is a recipe for societal failure.

<comment><USER61> Interesting, since Condoleeza Rice seems to be the very definition of Thought Police. Her quest for ideological purity resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being killed or maimed.

<comment><USER62> I require sources to prove your claim of "Her quest for ideological purity".

I already know of the Thought Police claims so I don't require those.

<comment><USER61> I.R.A.Q.

<comment><USER62> That's not an adequate source as it implies nothing in terms of my request.

If that's all it takes then will you agree with me that the current administration and its members, present and past, have been conducting a quest for ideological purity in Afghanistan and neighboring areas? Therefore none of them should hold a job of any significance now or in the future?

<comment><USER61> I'm really not at all interested in providing you a source nor arguing with you about who should hold a job or not. Draw your own damn conclusions on the information that is already public knowledge.

<comment><USER62> I apologize.

Once again I made the mistake of thinking I was having a civil discussion about a topic and asking for more information.

Again, I apologize for giving the impression I disagreed on the matter even though I never stated my position one way or other.

Based on other responses throughout this topic I'll call it a day on the matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Just did actually. Was it easier that I originally thought. I was about to start using 'Google drive' but I'll try handle my staff off-line first, then see how this plays out.

There are things I don't mind keeping online, Google drive comes handy because I work with 2 macs and a chromebook.

But I will take some time and review my options before proceeding. Here are some hints for others looking for another service:

* Wuala: Servers in Switzerland, owned by Lacy, iPhone/Android/Mobile Windows clients ready.

* SpiderOak: Everything should be encrypted (servers in the US though). Don't know about mobile integration but I guess it's there

* Google Cloud: Nice if you don't mind Google having your files.

* OwnCloud: For to be considered secure, you need a VPS (~100 USD/year) + OpenSSL certificate + time to set-it-up and manage the VPS. Has mobile clients.

I'm closer to Google Cloud for the time being..

</comment><comment><USER64> I am also fairly disappointed by this news. Rice was complicit in the Bush administration's war crimes and crimes against humanity. She also led the propaganda effort to dehumanize the Iraqi people in the minds of intellectuals.

It's a very strange feeling of disappointment... as if something precious, Silicon Valley innovation, talent, success, can somehow not succeed without the blessing/involvement/connections of government officials.

This definitely makes me question the ethics of Dropbox as a company.

This is not about politics at all, war crimes are clearly defined. FWIW Obama has also committed many and I'd be equally disappointed if he or one of his top warmongers was added to the Dropbox board.

</comment><comment><USER65> Come on everyone, if we work together we can get Condy fired just like we did Brendan Eich!

<comment><USER66> Thanks for the flippant comment. Eich resigned because while talking heads on TV would have you believe otherwise, the gay rights movement is a civil rights movement. By actively donating against it, he was making a strong statement about his leadership qualities that he would actively discourage equal rights for homosexuals.

That said, the idea to drop a product over the composition of its leadership is perfectly valid. If Robert Mugabe showed up on the Dropbox board of directors, I imagine a great many people would be nonplussed and Dropbox would have undergo a trial by public that would not end well.

A great many people would argue that given Rice's track record as a public servant, her personal and professional proclivities, while certainly more nuanced and less egregious than Mugabe, are not great when considering where you should store your data.

IMHO, tapping Rice for their board was a terrible decision and speaks more towards Houston trying to pump up the old-school market strength image of Dropbox than a wise strategic move to improve the quality of their service and business.

TL;DR, Houston, you fucked up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Spider Oak is great, and cares about your privacy. Everything's encrypted client-side.

</comment><comment><USER68> Yeah... or I could continue using Dropbox as I have done for the past couple of years safe in the knowledge that a director's political background has little-to-nothing to do with the day-to-day running of a tech company.

</comment><comment><USER69> Dropbox board and CEO decided this was a good move. They know it will alienate the original userbase, the tech savy, the first movers. In exchange they'll access old money, the old school corporations and government agencies.

They decided to screw the current userbase for a new userbase. It's over, just get over it. The maximum you can do now is refuse to use Dropbox.

It's sad how tech is getting to a cycle of befriend-and-switch on the community. This will surely make people more cynical and will make it much harder for upcoming startups. This is the highest cost we'll pay about this new trend.

<comment><USER70> exactly. I dun even understand the love affair ppl have with DropBox. It's just a cute GUI over FTP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Keep those torches lit for everyone in the current administration too, right? Torture, war, and mass-surveillance continue to this day, 5 years after she stopped being Secretary of State. In addition, many in the current administration were involved in the Iraq war as well.

</comment><comment><USER72> Bittorrent sync is actually an amazing dropbox replacement, and actually has a number of really good privacy implementations built in from the start. I'd highly recommend it, if anyone sees this comment.

<comment><USER73> Bittorrent Sync is an amazing product, I'd recommend switching even if you don't have political issues with dropbox. I use it to keep work files in sync between 3 different computers as well as to backup 100s of GBs of pictures, something that would cost a non-trivial amount to do with cloud providers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> I think it's safe to say that when a tech company reaches a certain size, especially ones that have a substantial amount of user data, it's impossible to be politically neutral on the war on data. If a company doesn't outright say where there position lies, it will come out in the leadership actions that are taken. I agree with this opposition against Dropbox because a company like Dropbox has to adamantly say, both with words and actions, that they are in favor of data privacy. Without this strong declaration, I can't do anything but assume that their integrity in regards to data privacy is weak or that they are outright in favor of exposing sensitive data in exchange for powerful partnerships.

</comment><comment><USER75> I don't feel this site goes far enough. As someone who values privacy, I feel I've already been slighted with this decision, and I don't plan on forgiving Dropbox for it if they change their mind. I'm cancelling my paid subscription this weekend.

</comment><comment><USER76> Boom. Downgraded my account to free. Now I have 8 months to accept OneDrive into my life.

It feels quite empowering to have the ability to protest the Iraq war with my wallet, more so than not voting Labour did.

</comment><comment><USER77> I have generally been using Google Drive anyway, but after what this person did to my country as well, I am not going to support a company that supports her.

Time to move all of my files from Dropbox to GDrive.

<comment><USER50> That was quick and painless. I was already using gdrive for my work files; downloaded and installed gdrive sync in about 5 minutes, and now I have over 3 times the free space I did with Dropbox. Thanks, Condy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Just delete your account already instead of tweeting empty promises

[https://www.dropbox.com/account/delete](https://www.dropbox.com/account/delete)

Reason: Other

Care to elaborate: Condoleezza Rice

</comment><comment><USER79> Funny the reaction of so many against this. If it's okay to vote by ballot, why is it not okay to vote by dollar? They're your dollars. It's perfectly fine to choose not to give them to companies that do things or whose leadership holds views you disagree with.

Dollars are far more powerful mechanisms of voting than ballots IMHO. Imagine if everyone investigated the leadership of companies they did business with and refused to buy from companies whose leadership supported unnecessary war, discrimination, etc.? If indeed it is corporate leadership that _really_ leads the country, then corporate leadership might be a more important target for change than governmental leadership.

<comment><USER80> Because voting by dollar is not democracy.

<comment><USER79> Then let's ban for-pay lobbying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> I'd suggest the alternative [http://mega.co.nz](http://mega.co.nz)

<comment><USER16> They didn't seem to know how to do cryptography right though.

<comment><USER82> Well they responded to all criticisms fairly reasonable and also introduced a vulnerability reward program. If you find a flaw you get up to 10000 €.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Finally people realize that Dropbox is unethical. They've been denying your computing freedom for years now, but it took hiring Condoleezza Rice for people to start to catch on.

Replace dropbox with ownCloud. [http://owncloud.org/](http://owncloud.org/)

<comment><USER84> I was looking at their site for a while and I really have no idea what they sell. I'm sure it's just a communication issue, but it seems kind of weird. Like I have to register to find out that I will get a client for free but pay $10K/month for the enterprise software or something.

How do they make money? Apparently you use your own server so you must buy the code?

<comment><USER85> ownCloud is free/open source software - you have no obligation to use ownCloud's servers or pay them anything - you can download both the client and server source code, host the server on your own machine, and connect to that with the client.

ownCloud run a business where they can host a copy of the server software for you, if you don't have your own machine or a usable connection - but there's no requirement to use that - you could spin up an instance in Amazon's cloud or elsewhere too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> its not only dropbox. She is also on board of multiple class-A valley startups including thomas siebel's c3 energy [http://www.c3energy.com/about-board-of- directors](http://www.c3energy.com/about-board-of-directors)

</comment><comment><USER87> Hah, you know, back in the day, when people had a problem with a political action it usually ended up in a serious sacrifice e.g. seppuku, self- immolation, revolt, crucifixion... guillotines, assasinations. Nowadays one can disagree vehemently with a leader just as before, but simply stop using a service related to them to help with some passive aggressive need of absolution from the shame you somehow internalized! Grand. Absolutely. Grand. I mean, sure if you have an issue with the deaths this woman is tied to...DEATHS, you know, for emphasis, you'd think that that would have been the last straw, that you would have given up your citizenship and moved elsewhere in at least some sign of protest against the U.S. Government as a Service. But no, this...this is the last straw, because now you can 'fight' her on your terms that won't hurt you too bad, show the world your 'mettle'. The sacrifice is symbolic enough you can tell your friends about it, but not so much that it actually hurts you, which really isn't a sacrifice at all. All you can do here is express an opinion, and change your money flow, which really doesn't alter anything, you've stalemated the battle, but the war is still lost.

</comment><comment><USER88> I'm moving over to BtSync ASAP; I really wish there was a Tarsnap like service but synced my data across multiple devices :( I can only really use it for backups...

</comment><comment><USER89> Aside from personal views, I question why Dropbox would make a move like this knowing that there would _some_ backlash at the very minimum. There are other people out there that would make just as good of a board member without the potential that Condi has for stirring up discontent. If they didn't anticipate this or consider the ramifications of adding Condi, then the execs behind the decision need some help.

</comment><comment><USER90> I'm not even going to ask you guys to stop with the angry villager thing. Almost a thousand of you upvoted it, you must be enjoying yourselves.

But I will ask that you take this off HN. All kinds of people in the world. They do all kinds of things and hold all kinds of opinions. I don't want to visit HN each morning and find the top item is the result of the latest googling and angry mob. Go get a room or something. It's not only that it's not interesting, it's actively non-productive. Every minute you spend with this is a minute you could be doing something better with your life -- the current person of outrage has nothing to do with anything. Trust me, there'll be a new one next week.

Just get a room. Take it somewhere else. Please.

<comment> mkr-hn I'm half with you on this. People can choose software based on their needs and values, and they should be free to encourage others to do so. It's perfectly valid to make a campaign like this. But HN has proven itself uniquely incapable of discussing political matters without making a mess of itself, so it doesn't fit here.

<comment><USER90> I deeply support people's right to talk about these things, boycott, and so on.

I'm even in favor of talking about moral issues here. As technologists, we bear a lot of the blame for many bad things that go on in the world. Too many times we like to feel like we're somehow above the fray.

My problem from a system standpoint is that we're starting to see a trend of engineering these things. Person X joins tech company. They get googled -- or they're just controversial. Then I got the top 3 spots of my HN feed full of Person X.

If it happened once a year it'd be one thing, but I'm feeling like this is going to be a new trend for us, and frankly, that's bullshit. The goal here isn't to have a conversation, it's to form up into little groups and go to war with each other. It's manipulative.

Nobody is going to read this thread and suddenly decide "you know, maybe I was wrong about that Iraq war decision all along" We're in cable news land, where we just want _drama_.

Today was the first time I actually felt that HN actively didn't want me here.

That's not the community I joined.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> I find it surprising that people are so desperate they beg the Dropbox company and still want to use the software after this.

1) You CAN live without Dropbox. There are alternatives (I personally use BTSync, which is great). 2) You shouldn't NOT be using an American service that holds and versions your data in first place. It is not new that all these services are wiretrapped, or at least easily accessible by the gov (not mentioning they sell/use your privacy to make money). 3) They won't kick out such an "extremely brilliant and accomplished individual". 4) Even if she gets kicked or leaves, this is yet another reason to not trust them, since they're blind/careless enough to hire her.

</comment><comment><USER92> Attacking companies for working with leaders who happen to have a conservative political viewpoint is simply unacceptable.

For goodness sake, Condoleezza Rice was the US Secretary of State! There are a substantial number of people who found her to be an excellent leader -- including at least 2/3 of the US Senate.

I am quite liberal, but I do not believe in blacklisting people because of their political beliefs. At one point, this country blacklisted "Communists" because of their beliefs -- it was not enforced directly by the government, but the blacklisting was nevertheless quite real. Let us not recreate that sad chapter in our history with "Conservatives" replacing the "Communists".

<comment><USER93> This has nothing to do with political beliefs or a conservative background.

You can be a conservative in all possible ways and still uphold moral principles. The last time I checked morality does not include lying, undermining human rights, waging foreign wars.

<comment><USER94> It has everything to do with her political beliefs and conservative background. Just admit it. You can still disagree with her and boycott Dropbox. Just say that you disagree with her political beliefs. The things the article referenced are all political.

<comment><USER93> Nope. In my world, morals matter more than political affiliation. Conservative or not, neither of those is inherently bad. What matters is how it's executed.

Oh, and by the way,I have observed this trend in the US where people who are liberals automatically disagree with conservatives just because. Sorry, I do like me some critical thinking, you know? You have that, right? I explained my case loud and clear. War is bad, regardless of whether you're conservative or liberal.

<comment><USER94> But you said it had nothing to do with her political beliefs - Going to war against Iraq is a political statement as she and others believed that WMDs were there and posed a threat to the region and the World. It's a political belief. I'm not arguing your moral stance. What I see is wanting something both ways - being able to say you don't disagree with politics of the woman, then disagreeing with the politics of the woman. (BTW, I'm not incensed, I'm the type that could argue all day with someone and then go shoot the breeze with a cold one later)

<comment><USER93> Except she did know that there were no WMDs there, and so did the rest of the admin.

Even if the WMDs were there, that in no way posed a threat to the region or the World. If anything, that was just a charade. It's widely known the US had a close relationship with Saddam.

Expanding on her making a political statement, people would have every right to condemn her that political statement if it's a pure lie.

P.S. Political affiliation/beliefs, like I said, don't make you a bad person. Fucking shit up and holding a certain belief are not connected.

EDIT: Plus, following your logic, if you're a republican and you beat your wife, does that mean being a republican is bad?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> A board member does not decide on features or dig into your account to look for your political preferences. I can think of a dozen reasons why they would have invited her and all of them would be good for the company and good for users:

\- advise on security matters and help keep the NSA out of my files.

\- get government business for Dropbox thus maybe reducing bureaucracy for citizens and small business owners alike in this country and others.

\- help the company navigate Washington in a lot of ways

My imagination is poor on the subject, but I think if a company gets a politically savvy partner who was chief diplomat in the most powerful country in the world for a while it is for the benefit of the company and it's users.

<comment><USER96> >> advise on security matters and help keep the NSA out of my files

What about her past makes you think she would have this position? I'd argue if the options are "Help protect your data from the NSA" or "Hand over your data to the NSA" that she would be much more in favor of giving your data to the NSA.

<comment><USER62> What about her past makes you think she would have this position?

<comment><USER96> Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run- up to war, former officials say [0]

>> Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's actions, telling "Fox News Sunday" the president had authorized the National Security Agency "to collect information on a limited number of people with connections to al Qaeda." >> ... >> Asked why the president authorized skipping the FISA court, Rice said the war on terrorism was a "different type of war" that gives the commander in chief "additional authorities." [1]

>> Wolf Blitzer Interview with Condoleezza Rice on Domestic Wiretap Controversy [2]

[0] [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_...](http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.html)

[1] [http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/](http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/)

[2] [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/26/sitroom.03.ht...](http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/26/sitroom.03.html)

<comment><USER95> Josh, that just tells you she is able to defend and promote the interests of the organization she works for.

<comment><USER96> So it's fine for someone to have no morals as long as they are good at their job?

<comment><USER95> Morals are essential. But we are judging them without knowing facts. We know neither why Drew, one of our own, had to make the hire, nor what kind of choices she was really faced with in the past. The position of Diplomat is a very tricky one in politics. In fact many opposition leaders get hired into it (including Hillary) because a Diplomat HAS TO parrot the decisions of the administration.

<comment><USER97> As soon as Drew is ready to shake hands with a person, directly or indirectly linked to mass war deaths, he ceases to be one of our own. For me, at least, this is the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> I approve of any thought process that allows me to narrow down the amount of awesome cloud services out there to choose from. Making choices is really hard for me. Also, I prefer ethical reasons because it makes me feel warm at night.

</comment><comment><USER99> What a brain-dead decision by Dropbox. I can't believe they actually thought of this themselves and decided what a great idea it would be to have someone like Condoleezza Rice on the board.

For some reason I expected a little more from a YC star.

</comment><comment><USER100> 1\. Uninstalled. 2. In 2014, every business faces the choice to either quit businessing or collaborate with the government. This choice will soon trickle to individuals, if Rome, Germany and the USSR are any reference.

</comment><comment><USER101> This is just silly.

<comment><USER102> How so? So it's ok to be a part of the team that was responsible for killing many men, women, and children and not only not answer for it, but move on to be on company boards where you can be a part of some serious collection of money at some point? Wow, ok. We must be living in different realities because those years that she was part of will be looked at (or already are) as some of the worst - if not the worst - in American history.

It's sad that none of that crew will ever answer for what they started and did. Granted, there were a lot of people in that chain that should have stood up and said no and not killed anyone. But they didn't. And if you or I did any of those things not wearing an army uniform, we'd be locked up and/or on death row.

I would never in a million years even acknowledge anyone from that team let alone bring them on the board of my company. We really are in an era where it's all about valuations, elevator pitches, and exits. I'm waiting for some young company to bring Dick Cheney on next.

Pick your battles I guess and I will be looking for an alternative that doesn't welcome war criminals.

<comment><USER101> While convenient to paint a picture of everything being messed up and different than previous generations, none of this is at all accurate. The difference is that we lived through the Bush administration, remember it vividly, and many of us disagreed with nearly everything that happened during those 8 years. And it just happened, so it's still fresh(ish). As the saying goes, "everything's different, everything's the same." I agree those years were really bad; whether they were the worst or whatever is relevant only to someone trying to make a broader point (which I'm not).

Personally, in most cases, I don't have a problem with hiring someone based on their merits, despite what their past job was, or even what their political beliefs are (see: Brendan Eich). Apparently Condoleeza Rice is extremely smart, capable, and, as the former Secretary of State, obviously well- connected in the international community.

And while you made a pretty good attempt at equating her to Dick Cheney, she's just not Dick Cheney.

At the end of the day, this is about Dropbox, not the Bush administration, and if Drew Houston has a spine, nothing will change about this situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Bittorrent share is actually an amazing dropbox replacement, and actually has a number of really good privacy implementations built in from the start. I'd highly recommend it, if anyone sees this comment.

</comment><comment><USER103> Very troubling hire. Very bad pr move by Dropbox. I relly don'why they would choose such a polarizing person.

<comment><USER104> Money.

Just a guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> How Dropbox could possibly not expect a shitstorm like this is beyond me.

<comment><USER101> What makes you say they didn't? They probably just don't care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> (With apologies to Zed Shaw, I am just using him as a high profile example)

Zed Shaw can be an asshole. But that guy can sure sling code, and I'll eat up anything he programs. Hire him as CEO of a large public company? Now we have a problem...

Brendan Eich actively opposes gay marriage. But he programs at Netscape and invents Javascript. Love the guys work. Hire him as CEO? Now we have a problem...

Hopefully this shows that the responsibilities at different levels within a business have differing impacts on society. So what if Zed Shaw is an asshole as a software developer? At that level he lacks the political clout to negatively impact society on such a large scale. We can then see that his short temper and sometimes vicious (and often hilarious) barbs are confined in reach. But what if he was President of the United States, sat in a room with Putin, discussing the Ukrane situation? Diplomacy may suffer.

This is why I had a problem with Eich as CEO of Mozilla. His backwards political views would have the political clout and mechanisms to negatively impact society.

As for Rice being appointed to Dropbox? I simply do not trust someone who has been shown to lie for political ends, to the point of invasion of a soverign nation and promote, participate in and endorse war crimes. I require COMPLETE TRUST in any data storage provider I use and as such deleted my dropbox account.

</comment><comment><USER107> I don't know who author of that mentions by saying "we", but I somehow don't feel I should respond to his call. I don't even really know who is that woman he is speaking about, I don't know about politics, I don't want to know. I can't even recall without googling who's running Dropbox right now and I surely don't know (I wonder if I could!) if they are good or bad people. I know Dropbox. Dropbox is a service that does something valuable to me. So, why should I be concerned?

I could be concerned if author explained me why and how is that _Dropbox_ does something "bad". If it'd show that it will hurt customers or dolphins or whatever. I surely would be concerned if it'd show that there's no way we can trust Dropbox anymore because of that. But if it would be so I don't think I should trust them anyway, because, you know, Condoleezza Rice doesn't fall from the sky right in the directors chair usually, she's invited first. They are already connected somehow.

But manifesting some organization (that does something useful, which rarely the manifesting ones do) because of some woman-who-supported-war (or man-who- is-against-gay-marriages, for that sake) is sitting the hight chair in it is stupid. I don't think I could use _anything_ if I protested about every company having some personality I disagree with in its owners/directors list (however their names may be somewhat less known than "Condoleezza Rice").

And if you want to hurt that Rice specifically for some reason — too bad, but I don't think that's big problem for her. I believe she has money to avoid dying of starvation anyway already.

</comment><comment><USER108> I wholeheartedly agree with this cause, but think the framing is terrible. It's clouding the picture by making things political when they don't need to be.

Rice's support of the Iraq war does not matter. Dropbox will not be starting wars or having anything to do with them, besides possibly getting lucrative DoD contracts.

Rice's position on torture does not matter. Dropbox has no reason or likelihood of torture.

Rice's involvement with Chevron does not matter. If anything, this is evidence that she might be an okay choice.

The only thing which matters is her position on warrantless wiretapping. It's not political. I'm just not comfortable having someone make key privacy decisions who, on the record, doesn't believe in my right to privacy.

Even if (bizarrely) you think mass surveillance might be acceptable, you should oppose Rice being on the board. Our system works best when there's an adversarial relationship between actors—when the government comes knocking, corporations will at least ask a couple questions about why, even just to verify this is a legitimate government request. Having someone who designed, and firmly believes in, the surveillance state on BOTH sides of the table destroys that.

So, yes, drop Dropbox.

</comment><comment><USER109> >Tell Drew Houston: drop Condoleezza Rice or we will

So if they drop Condoleezza Rice you'll be fine with their decision making process and keep your dropbox account?

<comment><USER110> No. It's more of a "let's hurt their image because we don't agree with the political decisions of Condoleezza Rice" at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> > This is not an issue of partisanship.

That's exactly what it is.

</comment><comment><USER112> Here are some things I've "learned" from the comments in this thread:

1\. Public discussion and encouraging people to vote with their wallet does not belong in a civil society.

2\. Nonviolent grassroots campaigns are anti-democratic.

3\. It's OK to do terrible things as long as you had good intentions.

Seriously, are you guys all completely insane? The quality of these comments is just amazingly bad. It goes beyond the standard "internet bad" comments full of trolling and bad reasoning, and over the edge into "actively ridiculous".

I'm sure there are good arguments to be made against this _but they aren 't being made here_. Please think about what you're about to write makes any kind of sense before you comment.

Edit: if I were more conspiracy minded, I'd be wondering if the Brendan Eich affair was deliberately created as a weak example to create a wedge and discredit the whole idea of attacking companies based on the politics of their high-level people. It certainly strikes me as unlikely that there would be so many negative comments towards this if the Eich business hadn't first put so many people in that mood.

</comment><comment><USER113> This is insane. All that's done here is seeking a scapegoat that can be hold responsible for everything. This is nonsense, the American people are responsible for the decisions of the very same people they voted for, and nobody else. She never has held a democratically elected office you say? That doesn't matter either, the system which allowed this to happen was.

Now I'm not saying dropping dropbox is an unreasonable decision, privacy concerns come to mind, but what's one of the options the article suggests as replacement? Ah yes Microsoft, one of the most "evil" companies in existence. So we trade one evil for another, but wait there is more! What's about the companies that made you mobile phone, clothing, car and the other thousand things you use in your daily life? Well, if you finished checking every single one of them, and dropping products from the "evil" ones then please send me an email with a list of goodies that can be considered ethical. Or wait, you'll not have a computer any more at this point.

</comment><comment><USER114> All this time I thought the line item reading "roll my own dropbox clone with a raspberry pi or something" on my Someday Maybe Projects list might always stay buried low on the stank rank.

Then this news broke. My personal digital exodus has commenced. Best not to wait until she conveys the authorization of Dropbox's administration to submit user data and activity in a privacy-flouting fashion.

"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture," she replied. "So that's -- and by the way, I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency . . .By definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture." \- [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil- trounstine/stanford-anti-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil- trounstine/stanford-anti-war-protest_b_195364.html)

<comment><USER76> You can always spin up [http://owncloud.org/](http://owncloud.org/) \- it sets up a WebDAV thingy, and there is an android photo sync app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> It makes it easier that I don't really like Dropbox as a product anyway.

</comment><comment><USER116> Her 9 page CV is here:

[http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/sta...](http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/staff_cv/CV%20_Rice_April_2013.pdf)

From that she is currently on the corporate boards of KiOR, C3 Energy, and Makena Capital. She previously was on the boards of Schwab, Chevron, Transamerica, and HP.

</comment><comment><USER117> This is a great way to express political opinion in a capitalist society where the ballot box is ineffectual. I hope we see more of it.

</comment><comment><USER118> Comparing this voicing of disapproval to Mc Carthyism is completely disingenuous, and I'm surprised that you do not know better.

In the 1950s it was the _government_ who harassed innocent citizens. You cannot escape the government, because it has absolute power.

What we are seeing here on the other hand is a peaceful protest of free citizens exercising their right to free speech.

</comment><comment><USER119> I am happy to hear more people understanding the notion that every dollar you spend is a vote. No matter what one may believe, being ignorant to the fact that business and politics have a lot to do with each other does not make you innocent. Spend your dollars responsibly. In fact, I'd even go as far to say that the way people spend their money can impact their government/politics/society in a much more drastic way than voting in the booths.

Rice was a war monger. She broke many laws-including international laws which we tend to throw out of the way when it comes to us-that were put in to protect us, the people. You think politicians don't choose their which business they invest in based on politics of people involved think again.

We need to change the way we spend our real vote, money, if we want real reform in our society. We need to show our influence and have politicians think again before passing the next SOPA act, or invading our privacy.

</comment><comment><USER120> Does anyone know of a version of [http://theyrule.net](http://theyrule.net) with updated data?

</comment><comment><USER121> The most positive aspect of Rice's appointment is that it is a clear signal as to how DropBox is likely to act when evaluating claims that a particular course of action will affect the United State's national security interests as those interests have been defined in recent years. It expresses that DropBox's operations are likely to be in accord with a particular interpretation of American patriotism.

Whether one as an American agrees with that interpretation of American patriotism or holds an orthogonal view, or whether a non-American sees that interpretation as right or not, individuals will now be able to make an informed choice about if, when, and how they use DropBox. There should be no wishful thinking, DropBox has declared itself part of the American military- industrial complex.

Such honesty is refreshing irrespective of my opinion regarding the nature of patriotism or what constitutes superior forms of its expression.

</comment><comment><USER122> I was expecting to see this response for their lacking reaction to Heartbleed, not to having Rice join their board...

<comment><USER123> For me, it's the _combination_ of the two events that is disturbing. Dropbox was discovered to be vulnerable to an exploit that may have been planted to facilitate government surveillance, and around the same time, Dropbox brings on board one of the architects of the current government surveillance overreach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER124> This is like being in the same boat with someone that caused a massive amount of people's life. Maybe that person has nothing against to you, or harmed you, and she can even be a the perfect captain for the boat.

But personally, If i have the option of another boat to board on, I would rather not be on the same one with her.

</comment><comment><USER125> Dropbox has made it pretty clear in the past that security and privacy isn't a major priority for them and this appointment makes it even more obvious.

That said, any US company doesn't have much choice when it comes to handing over information so I don't know how big of an impact this will have in practice.

</comment><comment><USER126> For those comparing this to the ouster of Brendan Eich: It seems to me there is a distinction in that he, despite his ignorant views, was able to keep them separate from his work.

Making this country less free and more war-like (e.g.; _less_ safe) WAS her work and she did it all too well. Her ties to the NSA alone are serious cause for concern. Do we really want someone in a position of power at a place that stores massive amounts of (supposedly) private user data?

I already removed 99.9% of my data from Dropbox after the NSA revelations with the assumption that the latter had access regardless of whether Dropbox was complicit. I assumed they weren't. With former Secretary Rice on the board I now assume Dropbox will become complicit and so I will delete my account altogether.

</comment><comment><USER127> I just closed my DropBox account with the reason "Condoleezza Rice". I want those people to know there are consequences to their actions.

Now if I was rational about it and it was as easy as living without DropBox, I would stop using Microsoft softwares.

</comment><comment><USER128> Maybe I'm the only one who's thinking like this but...

...It's just Dropbox.

"But she access to ALL THE THINGS!"

I highly doubt Dropbox will intentionally jeopardize the meat of their business model. And again. It's just Dropbox. Not the golden keys to nuclear warfare or even a tech mover and shaker like Google.

What I want to know is why a highly educated, over qualified, former leader of the country is joining a cloud storage company. Her skill set could be leveraged so much better elsewhere. It's just...what the hell. That's what's confusing me. Not her wielding political influence to rename my file extensions to .nsa or .chevy.

</comment><comment><USER129> Kind of wish there was a picture of dead kids warning before I clicked the link.

</comment><comment><USER130> Oh please. Every American here, myself included, started the war in Iraq and helped pass the Patriot Act by electing these buffoons and not throwing them out of office. The fault is within ourselves.

<comment><USER131> And how do you suggest throwing them out of office?

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> I love how it says it's not because she was a member of the Bush Administration and not partisan, then goes on to list a bunch of things she did as a member of the Bush Administration.

</comment><comment><USER133> I've kind of been waiting for a reason to switch to Google Drive because of (mainly) price and a few other factors. While not the main reason, this is the tip of the iceberg.

</comment><comment><USER134> If you find yourself needing to use Dropbox (or other cloud providers) for one reason or another, I would humbly suggest giving us a try: [https://www.ncryptedcloud.com/](https://www.ncryptedcloud.com/). We try to remedy the situation by allowing what cloud storage providers do best: syncing & sharing of data and we secure them. Having the data without the correct key render the data useless to any prying eyes.

</comment><comment><USER135> I feel that at this point we might to coin the verb "to eich", meaning "to shitstorm a company into forcing a high-ranking manager to resign".

<comment> mkr-hn The word is protest. It's a valid and useful form of speech. Not everyone wanted him out of a job. I don't even think that was the majority opinion. I only wanted to know that the new CEO's values lined up with the values of the company if I was going to continue using and supporting the company's products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER136> The only real alternative is building your own. I have, it was fun and it mostly works.

But suggesting that Box.com, Microsoft or Google are more trustworthy is misleading.

</comment><comment><USER137> This post is wrong on so many level it's not even fun...

Instead of denouncing the fact that a corporate has to hire political figures for their influence ( upon whom ?) it's a never ending list of clichés about good politician ( like obama letting the syrian people die, i suppose ?) vs bad politicians ( the world would have been such a better place with saddamn hussein !) from the point of view of a 5 year old.

Grow up a bit, please.

</comment><comment><USER138> I've been looking for an excuse to finally copy over my stuff from dropbox to google drive, thanks, I was too lazy to bother with it before :)

</comment><comment><USER139> It sounds like Dropbox is giving the middle finger to everyday consumers and this is simply a move to get Dropbox on every government machine.

</comment><comment><USER140> This is why my company's board is 100% cyborgs.

</comment><comment><USER141> Well I thought it would take longer for activists to start targeting companies in the wake of the Mozilla issue. I am actually surprised to see this happen so quickly. Its good to know that I am free to excersize my rights unless I want a job in the tech sector in which case I am required to conform to the social worldview of a selection of internet activists.

<comment><USER97> Is it a human right to approve torture, work towards starting a war and helping installing mass surveillance? I might have missed the U.N. meeting protecting those "rights".

</comment></comment><comment><USER142> You shouldn't use any of the alternatives listed here either. Because none of those supports encryption. All the cloud storage services which do not provide encryption are unexceptionally evil. Because given the easiness of implementing an encryption feature, not to implement it means the administrators of a service are willing to see users' files.

</comment><comment><USER143> I read through the whole site... where are the instructions on deleting a Dropbox account?

Not that it was very hard, but the link is non obvious in the Dropbox account settings, spent a couple more minutes than I'd like.

For those interested, this is a link from the support page:

[https://www.dropbox.com/account/delete](https://www.dropbox.com/account/delete)

<comment><USER144> Thanks!

As someone that is from a country that suffered from US meddling, and someone that was very critical of Condolezza Rice even before the actual war on Iraq started because of her role back then, I had to delete my account, I don't even bothered to make a backup, I just deleted it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER145> The link to [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/bush-adviser- rice...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/bush-adviser-rice-gave-ok- waterboard/) is broken on the page. There's no contact link to the drop- dropbox.com admins, so maybe they'll see it here...

</comment><comment><USER146> Recommend Google Drive and MS OneDrive? As if those two were any better. Google mines your data and MS sleeps with the NSA.

</comment><comment><USER147> So as a vocal, technically proficient and wealthy segment; we are now basically a lobby group. Minus third party funding, hidden agendas and three piece suits. I love this. I think that using our significant influence to form an opinion followed by digital exertion of will is simply of mirror of formal politics. Game on.

</comment><comment><USER148> I'm not about to read through 600 comments to find out if someone has already asked, so apologies in advance, but what is the state of viable dropbox alternatives right now? Through their college promotions and puzzle hunts, I have ~20GB of free storage there (afaik in perpetuity). Is there anything comparable?

<comment> mkr-hn I've used Copy for a while. I wrote a post on it comparing features with Dropbox: [http://mkronline.com/2013/09/25/dropbox-vs-copy-a- comparison...](http://mkronline.com/2013/09/25/dropbox-vs-copy-a-comparison- of-features-and-benefits/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER149> If you really don't like dropbox you won't tell people to quit. You will tell them to get free accounts and:

dd if=/dev/random of=~/Dropbox/junkFile bs=1024 count=1000000 Adjusting the count according to the account size (obviously).

If you do it again a few minutes later they will even help you out and store both copies!

</comment><comment><USER150> Just remember; Dropbox is convenient, and with that convenience come Condoleezza Rice having possession of your data.

</comment><comment> cm-t I linked this thread to /r/ubuntu since they might be concerned with the shutdown of Ubuntu One:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/22p14s/if_you_are_le...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/22p14s/if_you_are_leaving_ubuntu_one_for_dropbox_i_saw/)

</comment><comment><USER151> There's a broken reference in the site: <a href="www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/bush-adviser-rice-gave-ok- waterboard/">lied about the extent to which she was involved</a>

Fix: Add [http://](http://) to the link.

</comment><comment><USER152> I see shades of gray all over the present and future of this thread. Pretty sure if there were ever an appropriate thread for enabling pending comments [1], it is this one.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7484304](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7484304)

</comment><comment><USER153> If we collectively invested 1/10th of this passion towards real problems (like boycotting mega banks for the billions they stole during the financial crisis) instead of whether or not my free hard drive is advised by a ex-high-ranking politician, we'd be getting a lot more done.

</comment><comment><USER131> Rice brings Enterprise and Government contracts. In terms of Dropbox's valuation, I don't really see consumer dollars justifying any business model they have. Just look to Palantir if you want to see an example of a service that does very well with no consumer dollars at all.

</comment><comment><USER154> I'm from Middle East. I can't be the one who make Ms. Rice richer and happier. Goodbye Dropbox.

</comment><comment><USER155> First Mozilla for Brenden Eich and now Dropbox for Condoleezza Rice -- is this what Hacker News is now? a tool for the Internet lynch mob? Disgusting.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me." [1]

Some will say "But Dropbox/Condoleezza Rice is no victim here! They're just reaping the results of their actions." But that's exactly the point, isn't it: it's all fair until the Internet mob turns on you for something you've done that they don't approve of.

I'm not saying I approve of Condoleezza Rice being on the Board at Dropbox, but using HN for this sort of activism disgusts me.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...).

<comment><USER156> In this case, "them coming" just means a consumer boycott, at worst. It is in absolutely no way comparable to goons dragging people off to death chambers and you demean this debate by implying it is.

<comment><USER155> The death chambers may be missing, but the goons are definitely there. Feel free to tell Brendan Eich that it was a consumer boycott, at worst.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER157> I just deleted my Dropbox account. It was a free account anyway. I found it contained about GB of files I hadn't accessed in a couple of years.

Then I realized....

What a wise move on the part of Dropbox to bring Rice on board. They probably will free up a few Petabytes of space from non-paying geeks:)

</comment><comment><USER158> I dropped Dropbox about a year ago, after realizing I only used it for backups. Although a nice feature in idea I actually never accessed my files on other computers, so I dropped Dropbox and switched to Arq backups. I recommend it for anyone with the same dilemma.

</comment><comment><USER159> I was hoping this would be a site that would review and compare cloud storage alternatives.

<comment><USER160> That might be even more convincing! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER161> On 20 March 2003 I was a student studying accounting at Portland State University. By the end of the night I tried to block the Burnside bridge and the cops beat the shit out of me on the south-side steps for protesting the war..

</comment><comment><USER94> Why is this? Because she was a part of the Bush administration? Because she is a Republican and we should hate Republicans? I mean, come on, isn't Al Gore on Apple's Board? He's no saint! No. This is not an issue of partisanship."

They then proceed to bring mostly partisan viewpoints to the table. This is usually what those on the left do (yes, yes, I know, not all). Set things up as non-partisan and then proceed partisan attacks. We have A) Iraq War was wrong B) Torture and Bush lacky C)Warrant-less wiretaps D) BIG SCARY OIL

Let us back up and acknowledge that Congress okayed much of this, so any member at the time who is now a board member of any company should also be tarred and feathered.

You have the right to disagree with dropbox, but come on, drop the "this isn't partisan" partisan arguments.

</comment><comment><USER162> While I wish people took more moral stances like this, I feel like it's nonsensical to worry about Condi Rice, and worry more about the broken incentives around the financial system that Dropbox is headed for. Goldman Sachs is a substantial investor in Dropbox. Where were the cries to drop dropbox then?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Controversies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Controversies)

Or the ideology "fiduciary responsibility" for public companies, which involve companies like Google and Apple hoarding money offshore and using sophisticated accounting tricks to avoid paying taxes?

I'd like to see more of our "I AM OUTRAGED" efforts be aimed more towards the systems that cause our problems than the people who arise from them.

<comment><USER97> Really, isn't this the case that a lot of people are constantly outraged about goldman sachs, current state of affairs in the valley and perverted incentives of the start-up ecosystem?

</comment></comment><comment><USER163> Can someone explain to me how being involved with Chevron is unethical?

</comment><comment><USER164> Dropbox deciding to employ Condoleezza Rice is not reason enough for me to drop Dropbox; sorry. I will continue to use Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive, Box, and whatever else is out there.

</comment><comment><USER165> Just curious; what services would you not abandon if say, Bashar Al-Assad were to join the board?

I thought maybe GMail for me, but then I decided maybe there aren't any services I wouldn't leave.

</comment><comment><USER165> It should be noted that her consulting firm [0] has been advising Dropbox for the last year.

[0] - [http://www.ricehadleygates.com/](http://www.ricehadleygates.com/)

<comment><USER166> Just had a look at their website. It's like a dream team of awful people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER167> Ok, I agree with most of this. What is the best Dropbox alternative?

</comment><comment><USER168> At first, this Democrat thought this was a joke. I'm prepared to believe it still might be a show of how ridiculous this line of thinking is.

Rice is a huge "get" for Dropbox who I think has a good chance to be a significant asset for Dropbox once all this dust blows over. Rice has demonstrated time and again that she works for her team. In this case, that could mean making Dropbox the strongest, securest offering in the market. She is bright, well-connected and effective. Hardly anyone is mentioning her tenure at Stanford which is obviously a big plus for the company.

I don't see strong parallels to the Mozilla case. Different role, different company, different subject.

</comment><comment><USER169> I disagree with product boycotts in general, including this one. It means we're "voting with dollars", which means people with more dollars have more votes.

</comment><comment><USER170> If I open a thread "Drop HN", will it be published here? The site did more than enough during the last week to promote hate and intolerance. What do you think?

</comment><comment><USER171> That escalated quickly! This is a pretty strong digital political attacks to be lobbied against a tech company. I'm curious to see what response Dropbox will have.

</comment><comment><USER172> The only thing this article said which I agreed with was the wiretapping part. The other stuff: torture, Chevron, the war in Iraq, etc had nothing to do with Dropbox

</comment><comment><USER173> My thoughts as I read this article:

"She helped start the Iraq War" Ok, that was a costly war with a lousy outcome.

"She was involved in the creation of the Bush administration's torture program" Ok, torture and no due process seems pretty antithetical to a free society.

"Rice not only supports warrantless wiretaps, she authorized several" Ok, I like the 4th amendment and that weakened it even more.

"Rice was on the Board of Directors at Chevron" Omg, what did Chevron do on the same order as torture and warrantless wiretapping??? Oh, turns out nothing. Or at least this article offers no evidence. Kinda weakens the whole argument.

</comment><comment><USER174> sudo apt-get remove dropbox; rm -rvf ~/.dropbox ~/.dropbox-dist

done!

<comment> mkr-hn What about the files on Dropbox's servers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER175> "HEY HERE ARE SOME NON-PARTISAN REASONS TO NOT LIKE CONDI: partisan reason number 1 partisan reason number 2 reason 3 is valid partisan reason number 4"

</comment><comment><USER176> Well I have been planning to host my own dropbox like service on my own server for myself and I think now is the high time that I do!! Bye bye Dropbox!!

</comment><comment><USER177> [http://www.wikihow.com/Uninstall-Dropbox-from-a- Mac](http://www.wikihow.com/Uninstall-Dropbox-from-a-Mac)

</comment><comment><USER178> Why all this politicization of Rice's role? What possible relevance could her actions (or hysterical descriptions of her actions) in the Bush administration have in regards to her role as a board member of Dropbox?

Most likely, this is a political appointment to get Dropbox connections in Washington, to sell large contracts into the federal government. And, possibly, to sell into governments abroad where Ms Rice's connections may also be of value. (None of which has any relevance to the usefulness of their product to me.)

<comment><USER179> Actions have consequences. It's perfectly acceptable for individuals to choose to no longer support a product based on its leaderships decisions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER180> One could argue she was the temporizing influence in that administration...without her, Cheney and co would have had unchecked free reign...

</comment><comment><USER181> Anyone know of a Dropbox equivalent based in Europe?

<comment><USER182> I recommend [http://www.wuala.com/](http://www.wuala.com/)

In order to protect your privacy, Wuala encrypts the data on your computer before it is uploaded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER183> Safe to assume the persons behind the 900+ comments here approve of the political views and actions of the Hacker News owners and staff?

Dang, I guess I do!

</comment><comment><USER184> I'm sure that bringing Brendan Eich's politics into question when he moved into CEO position has made this a more popular trend.

<comment><USER185> Business leaders' politics have always been an issue, and people arrange boycotts all the time because of them (left, right, and center). It's called political speech, and it's actually a good thing. Heck, it even cuts both ways - for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has definitely changed my opinion of the Microsoft founder, and in a good way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER186> Oh boy, yet another idiotic witch hunt. I'm sure the author uses only software written exclusively by people with purest intentions.

</comment><comment><USER187> Looks like we are living a new age of McCarthyism.

<comment><USER145> Except McCarthy was seeking to destroy numerous people who had done nothing wrong. Other than that, yeah, it's the same.

<comment><USER188> Hindsight is 20/20\. At the time I'm sure many people believed those targeted by McCarthy had done things wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER189> > No. This is not an issue of partisanship.

Yes it is. Nearly every reason on there is partisan. Say what you want about "trustworthiness" and the fact that having an "untrustworthy" person on a cloud service provider's board is worrisome. Frankly, it's not. Even if Rice _were_ untrustworthy, I don't think my data would be in any danger.

If you're going to make complaints on partisan grounds, at least don't veil them as some kind of assessment of character.

</comment><comment><USER190> Bit torrent sync!

</comment><comment><USER191> I'm tempted to write nothing more than the following quote:

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." \- Mahatma Gandhi

But of course, Ms. Rice would probably have said the same thing about the reasons why she made the decisions she did.

We are all struggling with the same thing. I want/expect/believe the following, and here is my excuse/reason/proof of it. I find it hard to be open minded when so many are driven by their dirty ideals - myself included.

</comment><comment><USER192> I've been meaning to switch to Google Drive for a while now, this is a nice catalyst to actually get me to do it.

</comment><comment><USER193> No. This is not a trend I wish to support. Turning private business decisions into politicized movements is not cool.

</comment><comment><USER194> That picture of a dead girl is really disturbing. The link should have some sort of warning for graphic content.

</comment><comment> mkr-hn This seems like a prime candidate for being moderated off the front page, but it's still at #1.

<comment><USER195> Why what's wrong with it?

<comment> mkr-hn Every link on the Mozilla thing was demoted. What the mod said about doing it seemed very reasonable, but I can't recall the details at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER196> If one's major business depends on DropBox's righteousness and nobility - <USER4> these points become more or less valid.

For millions of others who use it just to backup stuff - what matters much more is the cost of the service rather then the resume of board members.

It's good for everyone to stir the waters though to show that the world at large is not sleeping any more.

</comment><comment><USER197> Politics aside, I don't see what she can contribute to a technology company like Dropbox!

<comment><USER198> Government connections -> contracts -> profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER199> I can't help but notice that whoever is behind this campaign found it necessary to give attribution to the people who produced the images on the page, and provided helpful links to Dropbox's CEO's social media accounts, but didn't bother to sign his own name to the cause. That's the very definition of gutless.

</comment><comment><USER200> Vote with your bits[and dollars] if you disagree.

Nerd rage alone is fruitless without tangible follow-thru.

</comment><comment><USER201> This article reminded me - why aren't the people from Bush administration in prison?

</comment><comment><USER202> I have full faith that that website is the dumbest thing I will have read this month.

</comment><comment><USER203> [https://AlwaySyncd.com](https://AlwaySyncd.com)

</comment><comment><USER204> I call this internet bullying. I'm most def not gonna stop using a product just because I don't agree with the ideas of one person in the team. This makes me wonder if Google, Microsoft, Box or even Amazon aren't behind this kinda message; y'know trying to make it viral and stuff...

<comment><USER205> I think it's the historic actions of the person rather than their ideas that are bothering people. But I can't speak for them, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER206> It's not enough reason to drop dropbox.

I'd need a more serious reason, like if the service deleted all my data.

BTW, I recommend Keepass in combination with dropbox for a good reliable password manager. The file is encrypted before sent to dropbox, so Rice won't be able to snoop in your passwords.... Or will she? ;-)

</comment><comment><USER207> What's a good sync solution for 1Password that doesn't use Dropbox?

<comment><USER208> iCloud is the other featured cloud provider that AgileBits proclaims on their website, although I wouldn't recommend it. Not a knock against Apple, but I prefer to diversify my technology and not get locked-in into any one service.

I just switched back to 1Password from LastPass, and I'm just syncing between my iPhone and my MacBook (my only computer ATM) using wi-fi sync, and backing up my 1Password data on my MacBook to tarsnap.

I've seen someone else say they sync their 1Password data using BitTorrent. Haven't tried it myself, but that seems interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER209> LOL.

I was just hilariously accused of being a racist for tweeting the #dropdropbox hash tag.

</comment><comment><USER210> Eich donated $1,000 to a campaign he agreed with. Rice helped run part of the country you are lucky enough to live in. Get over yourselves. I bet everyone of you would work at Dropbox or Mozilla in an instance, even if they were prominent figures in the company.

</comment><comment><USER211> This is incredibly childish HN. First the guy from firefox and now this. Politics is the Mind-Killer.

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/)

</comment><comment><USER212> I appreciate your feelings towards the matter, but I don't support your action. An open letter to Drew Houston would have been enough. It's a corporation, we cannot force it to do something we want to. Boycotting them is not a good option.

<comment><USER97> Why it is not a good option to boycott them? I'd say this is a great option to putting pressure on a corporation.

<comment><USER212> It's almost like Socialism, where a populist sentiment is tried to be shoved down the throats of the corporations. I don't use dropbox, but I for sure appreciate their creative genius. It's their prerogative to appoint anyone they wish.

You might say it's your privilege to boycott, but then mass boycott is like mob mentality.

<comment><USER97> Are you being sarcastic?

<comment><USER212> Not really. Chasing Condi Rice throughout her life for what she did during her term as the Sec of state is uncalled for. If anything, she deserves a fair trial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER213> Dropbox certainly has lost some peoples trust.

What makes any of the other companies more trustworthy though? Has someone personally interviewed all the employees, performed a security audit of their system, and determined they are legit?

Seems like a false sense of security.

</comment><comment><USER214> "Its not about who you know, its about who knows you."

</comment><comment><USER215> I find the explicit images of war and torture very distasteful. Especially alongside a goofy illustration of Condoleezza's head in the Dropbox logo. There are certainly more appropriate ways to communicate your message besides FUD.

<comment><USER216> > _I find the explicit images of war and torture very distasteful._

Really? You find the _images_ distasteful, rather than what the images represent? You should be far more distressed by _war and torture themselves_ than depictions of them. Sort out your priorities.

<comment><USER215> I suppose if you interpret my words literally, you're correct.

Sorry if I was unclear, but I meant that the presence of war and torture images (which in turn themselves automatically represent something, which is in this case, actual war and torture) is grossly out of proportion to the message being presented in the parent link. Out of proportion, that is, to the very mundane event of someone becoming one of Dropbox's board of directors.

There's an implication here that Dr. Rice, by being a board member, will guide Dropbox into committing acts of war and torture. This implication is most strongly suggested by the presence of those images.

I could make a webpage which looped a video montage of people being beaten and murdered by police officers and upon it superimpose the message "DON'T ARGUE WITH POLICEMEN". Certainly there are more civil and dignified ways to convince people to not argue with police officers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER217> The fb share link has href="[http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=<url>"](http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=<url>"). It still functions though, js triggered.

</comment><comment><USER218> I'm a little suspicious about this whole thing. I want to know who authored this website. Otherwise I hate to say it but I have to assume it is a hit- piece produced by "Box.com" to get people to leave Dropbox.

</comment><comment><USER219> There should have been some warning on this link. That picture of that grieving (I assume) father was too much. I get the point the author is trying to make but it didn't have to be an /r/wtf subreddit.

</comment><comment><USER220> I just switched to Google Drive, it's cheaper as well.

<comment><USER221> I'd use it also if there was a Linux client.

</comment></comment><comment><USER222> Who's next on their Board of Directors, Linda Tripp?

<comment><USER223> Pol Pot?

</comment></comment><comment><USER224> Im going to'Dropbox'before I ever pick it up !

</comment><comment><USER225> The way I would "drop Dropbox" if they or Rice give in to this shameful attack on diversity of thought. Otherwise, thanks in part to this effort, I will remain a loyal Dropbox customer for life.

</comment><comment><USER226> I thought this was going to be about Heartbleed...darn.

</comment><comment><USER227> Worked at Firefox... should work at Dropbox, right?

</comment><comment><USER36> But Guido van Rossum works for Dropbox, are we supposed to not support Guido?

These witch hunts hurt a lot of people, much more than the single figurehead that everyone get all up in arms over.

<comment><USER114> "Figurehead" doesn't exactly apply in this case given her role specifically entailed the orchestration, coordination, and authorization of unconscionable (at worst) and morally repugnant (at best) acts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER188> I thought Silicon Valley was dying for more women and minorities to join their ranks! Rice is both so shouldn't we all be elated?!

Oh, she's a Republican? Fuck her.

<comment><USER228> How about she has a questionable approach to privacy and Dropbox is an application where privacy is key?

<comment><USER168> How about, she's in a remarkable position to help Dropbox become the leading provider with respect to privacy?

<comment><USER228> She could join Amnesty and be in a remarkable position to campaign against torture but her history suggest that isn't something she is remotely likely to do.

Similarly her history suggest that she is not a proponent of individual privacy where it conflicts with the perceived need of the state so I'm not sure why you think it's something she'd do now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER229> dropbox is not a good product, and will never be. so I'm not concerned. tech unsavvy people use those kinds of products, and that's how you spy on so many people.

I'm not surprised, and I don't care, because most people don't really care to understand the implications of technology and the implications it can have, and that's exactly how you rule over uneducated smartphone and computer users.

</comment><comment><USER230> Basically, the argument is to Drop Dropbox because Condi was a part of the Bush administration and is a Republican.

</comment><comment><USER231> Drew@dropboox - bad move...

</comment><comment><USER232> HubiC is 25 free gigs.

</comment><comment><USER233> Seems like an extremely odd selection to me as well as politically charged.

</comment><comment><USER234> drop everything, after all you have the NSA - <USER5>

</comment><comment><USER235> These are exciting times! Companies and their leaders are actually being held accountable directly by the people for their unethical, immoral behaviours by diverting their business elsewhere. It's amazing to know that so many in the tech industry care about these issues.

</comment><comment><USER236> Why does it seem like all of these campaigns are against right-leaning people?

if this is the kind of tactics you need to use to win, I hope you never win.

</comment><comment><USER237> Wow the HN anti flamewar algo (as someone mentioned)...

As Dropbox is a YC alumi it puts also a bad light on HN.

</comment><comment><USER238> Internet outrage - one the most promising resources of the 21st century.

It's cheap, it's renewable, and the Internet is producing more of it than we can handle.

If we could figure out how to power engines with Internet outrage, we'd solve all of our world's problems.

Right now it's mostly producing angry tweets and protest pages, but I'm sure if we work together we'll figure it out, eventually.

Until then, keep the outrage coming! I believe in outrage!

<comment><USER239> The internet outrage machine is highly inefficient and produces considerable less energy than put into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER240> grow up

</comment><comment><USER241> 3 words: not gonna happen.

</comment><comment><USER242> Okay lets describe this with satire..

How Many of you Voted for Bush Sr? If you did you are just as guilty as dropbox..

Oh please...

<comment><USER243> > How Many of you Voted for Bush Sr?

What does Bush Sr. have to do with this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER244> Why is this on HN? This is just a political powder keg. Anyone who agrees with the article will upvote it and any comment supporting it. Anyone who disagrees with the article will downvote it and any comment opposing it.

The only "benefit" to this post is that the publicity given to the grievance (whether real or imagined) will sway Dropbox leadership to drop Condi. Whether that's a good thing or not for Dropbox as a business is not even considered. The content of the article has no real benefit to anyone.

<comment><USER75> Powder keg or not, a Privacy concern would certainly influence my decision of whether or not to use their APIs in my software, especially on behalf of consumers. They've been trying to attract developers to their API, and they just lost my interest.

<comment><USER244> I don't see the privacy concern. Is the fear that Condi is going to persuade Dropbox leadership to open the doors to govt. snooping?

<comment><USER75> I don't fear that, so much as that she would facilitate it or fail to act to prevent it. I don't care about most of the content of the OP's page, but I'm not really willing to give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making sure I'm the only one with access to my data.

As MichaelGG points out, maybe I was wrong to assume that my data was safe in the first place. In either case, yes, Dropbox and its APIs are no longer on my radar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER245> >Why is this? Because she was a part of the Bush administration? Because she is a Republican and we should hate Republicans? I mean, come on, isn't Al Gore on Apple's Board? He's no saint!

>No. This is not an issue of partisanship.

 __Okay, let 's read on then... __

3 of the 4 reasons OP explained are directly linked with her being a part of the Bush Administration.

I do believe having Ms. Rice on board is a bad idea. But please don't say one say one thing ("it's not because she was a part of the Bush administration") and then do other ("IT IS because she was a part of the Bush administration").

Bad way to get people behind you, and makes you look painfully unserious.

<comment><USER246> It's not because she was part of the Bush Administration, but what she did while she was there. There's a difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER247> Wholly disagree.

However I am always amazed how much effort so many here put into trying to take offense, show their claimed offense, instead of acting when similar if not worse is coming from the current administration.

Really guys, grow the fuck up.

We do not know all the facts that Rice and others in her position had let alone the options available. We did however have our time back them to rail against them yet the same railing against her are fawning over the drone assassin we have in office now.

So honest, take your fake angst, your damnable wannabe clique and shove it. You do nothing with the evil at your door today only to jump on the train of least resistance.

Oh, its easy to pillory Rice, Bush, or any of those evil Republicans, but damn if you stand up to those in power now. At least Snowden did, he has done more than the rest of this site will ever do.</comment>