Slashdot Mirror


Double Take: Condoleezza Rice As Dropbox's Newest Board Member

Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State under George W. Bush, and defender of Bush-era (and onward) policies about surveillance by wiretapping and other means, has landed at an interesting place: she's just become a part of the small board at Dropbox. TechDirt calls the appointment "tone deaf," and writes "At a time when people around the globe are increasingly worried about American tech firms having too close a connection to the intelligence community, a move like this seems like a huge public relations disaster. While Rice may be perfectly qualified to hold the role and to help Dropbox with the issues it needs help with, it's hard not to believe that there would be others with less baggage who could handle the job just as well." Some people are doing more than looking for an alternative for themselves, too, as a result.

313 comments

  1. Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She's pretty sharp, well connected, and understands how the government sees these types of date & service providers.

    At a she's an awesome catch for any cloud company. Throw in her political awareness and it's even better.

    1. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Saying she's a bad choice is like saying a successful defense lawyer is incompetent because he got his client off.

    2. Re:Good choice by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She's pretty sharp

      Anyone that thought the Iraq War was a good idea, should not be described as "pretty sharp". There is a saying that 'Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good.' Condoleezza Rice is proof that we have moved past that. She is female (and black), and promoted to the highest levels, despite the failure of nearly all her policies. She is proof that you no longer have to be male to be both successful and incompetent.

    3. Re:Good choice by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      She's also just a board member. They rarely make any decisions regarding company policies or products. Instead the board is there to make sure they get paid, that the company's executives are held accountable to them, and so forth. The board is essentially the company's owners or representatives of the owners.

    4. Re:Good choice by jsepeta · · Score: 0, Troll

      She's a horrible cunt who lied to America to lead us into a war that helped to bankrupt the country, both morally and economically. Gifting her a board position is as helpful to a technology company as literally sucking GWB's cock. I will be migrated off from Dropbox by the end of the day. Fuck them.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    5. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      date & service providers

      dropbox == escort service?

    6. Re:Good choice by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      99% of the users of Dropbox will not care and for a large number of potential users she will provide sense of legitimacy.
      Goodbye paranoid trouble makers that use the free service, hello companies that pay for the service.
      I fear that some members of the tech crowd think they have more power than they really do,

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Iraq war was good for all the companies involved, just like the other wars. Plus, it took down the criminal who dared to trade oil in euros, not dollars, so it was good for the State as well.

    8. Re:Good choice by khasim · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyone that thought the Iraq War was a good idea, should not be described as "pretty sharp".

      That depends upon whether you mean "good idea ... for the USofA" or "good idea ... for me and my friends".

      A lot of companies made a lot of money off of that war.

      She is female (and black), and promoted to the highest levels, despite the failure of nearly all her policies. She is proof that you no longer have to be male to be both successful and incompetent.

      I don't agree with that. I think that anyone, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc, will always have a job publicly supporting the existing power structure.

      She wasn't elected. She was appointed by the people who were elected. And those were white men.

      Which is why I think that she's now at DropBox. She still has those political connections. And DropBox wants to pay her for access to them.

    9. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol u mad bro?

    10. Re:Good choice by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Goodbye paranoid trouble makers that use the free service

      Can't speak for any of the other 'paranoid trouble-makers' out there, but she doesn't scare me.

      Probably doesn't scare anyone else smart enough to encrypt private stuff before uploading it to the cloud, either.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:Good choice by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1, Interesting

      She's a horrible cunt who lied...

      That may not be truthful. There's a consensus building that she and her allies genuinely believed in their policy. That doesn't speak well for her competence but at least her integrity isn't under as great a scrutiny.

      So, it's an old familiar foe called Ignorance that we keep on fighting, instead of some malevolent conspiracy.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    12. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, does anybody really think that Condi Rice has the technical savvy to decrypt their emails?

      It's like being afraid of the NSA's janitorial staff. Jesus fuck.

    13. Re:Good choice by lgw · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Iraq war achieved all of it's objectives:
      * Got our troops out of Kuwait, and anywhere else too close to Mecca
      * Removed Saddam, both ending his destabilizing influence in the region, and showing other tin-pot dictators that the US should be feared.
      * Allowed Iraq to achieve democracy (the Iraqis did the hard part, of course, but the removal of the dictator was the needed first step.

      Arguably, Iraqi democracy inspired the Arab Spring - it certainly played a role. Sounds like the war was a good idea to me: we achieved all of our objectives. Did you confuse the propaganda reasons for the war with the actual goals?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      date & service providers

      dropbox == escort service?

      Urbanspoon isn't an african american dating site?

    15. Re:Good choice by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think that anyone, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc, will always have a job publicly supporting the existing power structure.

      Isn't that an amazing step forward in egalitarianism? Such a short time ago, someone like her would never have been accepted, no matter what her political views. Pretty cool, eh? Nah, just kidding. Let's keep blaming everything on "white men" LOLZ

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re:Good choice by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Iraq war achieved all of it's objectives:

      The objective of the war was to destroy Iraq's WMDs. The things you listed were made-up-after-the-fact justifications.

      Prior to the war, we had three goals:

      1. A united Iraq
      2. A secular Iraq
      3. An Iraq opposed to Iranian influence.

      These were also the goals of Saddam Hussein. They are NOT the goals of the current government of Iraq, which has pretty much the opposite goals (for instance, they are supporting the Assad regime in Syria).

    17. Re:Good choice by Rockoon · · Score: 0, Troll

      She's a horrible cunt ...

      If she were white they would call her racist... but since she isn't...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    18. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's quite brainy, considering and also considering. I wouldn't put it past her.

    19. Re:Good choice by SpasticWeasel · · Score: 0

      Removed the only viable opposition to Iran in the region. Yeah, brilliant success.

      --
      No sooner do I get over one, then you put a better one right next to me. Bastards.
    20. Re:Good choice by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The objective of the war was to destroy Iraq's WMDs. The things you listed were made-up-after-the-fact justifications.

      That was never the goal. That was the BS propaganda. Don't believe everything^W anything you see on the news. We didn't even hear the term "WMD" until Blair said that the UK wouldn't join us without a UN mandate.

      The UN resolution that served as the peace treaty that ended the first Gulf War included a requirement that Saddam destroy all his WMDs and provide proof that he had done so. That proof hadn't been provided, so, bingo, pretext for war. Whether Iraq actually had any WMDs was only relevant to ginning up emotional support: the propaganda mill. It was never actually important.

      BTW, it's no more important that Iraq have pro-American policies than that France does. Democracies are more open to trade and less open to war, so we benefit regardless. It's far easier for a dictator to find purely personal gain in expanding his territory regardless of sanctions, as we see in Ukraine now, for example.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    21. Re:Good choice by dlt074 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "* Got our troops out of Kuwait, and anywhere else too close to Mecca"

      um no, US troops have been and will continue to be in Kuwait. not to mention Qutar.

      "*... and showing other tin-pot dictators that the US should be feared."

      the only thing Bush did that Obama has undone.

    22. Re:Good choice by lgw · · Score: 1

      Vastly fewer troops, though. We used to have a significant presence there after GW1. I'm not blaming Obama in that way yet - the goal was deterrence of the likes of Kim Jong Ill, not so much Putin.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re:Good choice by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Democracies are more open to trade and less open to war, so we benefit regardless. It's far easier for a dictator to find purely personal gain in expanding his territory regardless of sanctions, as we see in Ukraine now, for example.

      Except the country that invaded Ukraine was Russia, and Russia is a democracy. It doesn't become "not a democracy" just because you don't like the guy they elected. Putin was reelected with a much bigger margin than Obama, and has sky high approval ratings.

    24. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That describes Hilary Clinton pretty well too... are you a womyn hater?

    25. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      lol yeah....Russia is a democracy just like North Korea is.

    26. Re:Good choice by lgw · · Score: 2

      Saddam had elections - he received 100% of the vote with 100% voter turnout! Putin's still working towards that goal.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Iraq war achieved all of it's objectives:
      * Got our troops out of Kuwait, and anywhere else too close to Mecca
      * Removed Saddam, both ending his destabilizing influence in the region, and showing other tin-pot dictators that the US should be feared.
      * Allowed Iraq to achieve democracy (the Iraqis did the hard part, of course, but the removal of the dictator was the needed first step.

      Arguably, Iraqi democracy inspired the Arab Spring - it certainly played a role. Sounds like the war was a good idea to me: we achieved all of our objectives. Did you confuse the propaganda reasons for the war with the actual goals?

      You should read the war nerd article - http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8565&IBLOCK_ID=35

      So who won in Iraq - In short-term, Iran and in long-term, the countries that stayed out - China and India

    28. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, he is. Are you simple?

    29. Re:Good choice by Impish · · Score: 1

      Vastly fewer troops, though. We used to have a significant presence there after GW1. I'm not blaming Obama in that way yet - the goal was deterrence of the likes of Kim Jong Ill, not so much Putin.

      Deterrence of North Korea? Like stopping them from their nuclear testing? Or perhaps stopping them from shelling South Korea? Didn't seem to work, unless you really believe North Korea *wants* to invade South Korea.

    30. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Saying she's a bad choice is like saying a successful defense lawyer is a bad choice because he got his client off, and you were the prosecuting attorney.

      FTFY. Because really, it has nothing to do with competence. I'm sure she's very competent. Just in a way that is bad news for dropbox users (ie, the "prosecuting attorney" in the fixed analogy).

    31. Re:Good choice by cusco · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, even Downing Street knew that the whole justification for the invasion was crap, if you remember they complained internally that "the intelligence is being fixed". Blatant falsification of data, deliberate sabotage of the WMD inspections (IIRC they were 97% complete when the US told inspectors they had to leave immediately because bombing was about to start), illegal propaganda operations targeting the US public, the whole run-up to the war was founded on lies that were exposed in the foreign press but knowingly redistributed by the US media. There may be "a consensus building", but joining that group will require deliberately forgetting everything that was actually going on at the time in favor of historical revisionism.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    32. Re:Good choice by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Anyone that thought the Iraq War was a good idea, should not be described as "pretty sharp".

      Academi (AKA Blackwater Mercenaries) made a mint, as did Haliburton and a number of others. So how was it not a good idea for them?

      Making the rich richer is the point of government, right? That's what Reagan said in the '80s, and they've worked towards ever since.

    33. Re:Good choice by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      It was good for Iraq since Saddam and his brutality are done and Iraq is now a functioning if troubled democracy. As a bonus the cost was less than Saddam's long term average of death and destruction, and that is now ended. And it also meant no more oil for food money being diverted to build palaces and buy weapons but instead is going to benefit the Iraqi people.

      It was also good for Europe since many European countries got either oil or construction contracts from Iraq.

      It was also good for leftist weeklies since Vietnam is ancient history and they needed something else to whine about. (I assume you subscribe to several.)

      It was also bad for al Qaida since it cost them massive support since the Arabs in the surrounding countries could see al Qaida's brutality close up.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    34. Re:Good choice by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Saddam had elections - he received 100% of the vote with 100% voter turnout! Putin's still working towards that goal.

      Saddam's elections were blatantly fraudulent. Putin's elections were not. If another Russian election were held today, he would win in a landslide. In what way is Russia not a democracy?

    35. Re:Good choice by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      The objective of the war was to destroy Iraq's WMDs. The things you listed were made-up-after-the-fact justifications.

      Prior to the war, we had three goals:

      1. A united Iraq
      2. A secular Iraq
      3. An Iraq opposed to Iranian influence.

      You have it backwards. Those were the bogus justifications. Prior and during the war, there were two goals:
      1. Let GWB power trip by taking out the guy he didn't like and naively think the world would consider him a hero for doing so.
      2. Make lots of money for campaign contributors.

    36. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.economist.com/node/...

      Apparently, there are some election rigging issues. Something about voter turnout exceeding the number of eligible voters, 99.5% of people in one region voting for one party, etc.

    37. Re:Good choice by machineghost · · Score: 1

      And what about the hundreds (thousands?) of soldiers who died? Or the thousands more who were maimed for life, either physically or mentally: was it good for them too?

      And that's not even mentioning the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqis who died or were similarly maimed in the war. Life's much better for them because Saddam is gone, right?

    38. Re:Good choice by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Anyone that thought the Iraq War was a good idea, should not be described as "pretty sharp"

      It was a pretty good deal for some Party donors and probably ensured Bush's re-election.
      You have to remember that such people have different values and aims to those of the country they are supposed to be working for.

      She is female (and black), and promoted to the highest levels

      The fly in that ointment is that Wolfawitz's girlfriend was parked in Rice's department, was earning more than Rice and was not under Rice's chain of command.

    39. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddam's elections were blatantly fraudulent. Putin's elections were not.

      And you know Putins elections were not fradulant how exactly? There is a huge dissenting voice in Rusiia that somehow did not translate into the polls. Keep wearing those rose colored glasses.

    40. Re:Good choice by JayBat · · Score: 1

      Condoleezza Rice is profoundly corrupt and has the ethics of a hyena. I suppose that *does* make her a perfect American corporate board member; it certainly seems to have pleased the cute little righties on Slashdot...

    41. Re:Good choice by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      And you know Putins elections were not fradulant how exactly?

      1. Because independent observers, while reporting irregularities, said it was more-or-less a valid election.
      2. Because his margin of victory was almost the same as pre-election polls.

      There is a huge dissenting voice in Rusiia that somehow did not translate into the polls.

      Uh ... Putin got 63% of the vote. So the other 37% were a clear dissenting voice. But they lost. That is how democracy works.

      Keep wearing those rose colored glasses.

      Look, Putin is an autocratic bully, and all around asshole. But he is a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED asshole. The fact that you don't like him (I don't like him either) doesn't mean Russia is "not a democracy". "Democracy" means elected leaders, it doesn't mean elected leaders that America approves of.

    42. Re:Good choice by nobuddy · · Score: 2

      Hey, Saddam was know to kill up to 3 people a year! So what if a hundred thousand of his people died, and Al-Queda was able to move in to a country previously unavailable to them to begin killing locals. So long as those 3 people were saved! And my Halliburton stocks paid nice dividends.

    43. Re:Good choice by nobuddy · · Score: 2

      The USA has started more wars than any other country. Your democracy claim falls pretty damn flat at that fact.

    44. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me what you are smoking!

    45. Re:Good choice by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Your figures are a few orders of magnitude too low.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    46. Re:Good choice by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      She's pretty sharp, well connected, and understands how the government sees these types of date & service providers.

      Which is precisely why I'd like to see her go be NFL Commissioner and leave the internet the fuck alone.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    47. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's pretty sharp,

      WRONG.

      She is a political drone who serves her masters.

    48. Re:Good choice by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      If you think Iraq's government is a "puppet government" then you have a really poor understanding of puppet governments. If you think that Iraq is heading to become a theocracy like Iran then you have a really poor understanding of Iraq's flavor of Shia Islam. You should look into Ayatollah Sistani's stand on that. Hint: look into "Shia Quietism" As to the Kurds, there is very little chance they will be subjected to genocide again by the government in Baghdad any decade soon. Saddam did it with chemical weapons and a large, well equipped Iraqi army against defenseless Kurds. The chemical weapons are gone, the Iraqi army is very different now, and the Kurds are well organized and not at all defenseless.

      There is more spite than insight to your post.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    49. Re:Good choice by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You'd rather have someone from Obama's team join them? Or maybe Hillary herself?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    50. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin shutdown all media that challenged his rule. In order to operate a press outlet in Russia via newspaper, TV, radio, or Internet, you need a license and this license can be revoked by executive order. Constitutional challenges do not work because the Kremlin routinely bribes judges. The country is effectively a dictatorship, the same as Venezuela under Chávez (even though Chávez was democratically elected three times).

    51. Re:Good choice by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Concerning the theocracy and Shia Islam part, what's your opinion on the most recent attempts to (re)introduce Jaafari law to Iraq?

      Iraq poised to legalize marriage for girls as young as 9
      Iraq ready to legalise childhood marriage

      But the legislation, known as the Jaafari law, introduces rules almost identical to those of neighbouring Iran, a Shia-dominated Islamic theocracy.

    52. Re:Good choice by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      I worked directly for Dr. Rice at one point and amazingly enough, so did lots of people of varying shades. The only regret I have of Dr. Rice is not seeing her go into politics beyond the Bush years. I would gladly campaign for her in any format.

    53. Re:Good choice by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Uh... If anything, Bush showed all the terrorists of the world that one successfully attack is sufficient to cripple the US economy and bleed us through involvement in several foreign wars. Those wars demonstrated that invading and occupying a couple of small middle-eastern nation was sufficient to over-extend and tax our huge military, while simultaneously draining our budget. They also sapped US will to get involved in other theaters.

      "You go the war with the army you have, not the army you want." Anyone remember that? What about sending the reserves into battle? Multiple tours of duty with PTSD soldiers? Inability to provide proper veterans care? Lowered recruitment standards?

    54. Re:Good choice by geirlk · · Score: 1

      In ye olden days, people could also vote for a tyrant. The difference with todays tyrants are that they aren't held accountable after the fact to the same degree as in eg. ancient Greece.

      And there are reasons to call Putin atleast "tyrant-ish".

    55. Re:Good choice by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Good Grief, you're kidding right?

      Yeah, she's great. Smart, ambitious, a real success story. Couldn't agree more. She's probably a nice person, too, I have no idea.

      Wake up, it's 2014. Privacy is in the forefront of everyone's mind who isn't living with their head in the sand.

      Anyone connected with the BUSH ADMINISTRATION should not be involved with a company that people trust with anything PRIVATE. Like your FILES.

      This transcends political viewpoints, societal viewpoints, gender and sexuality viewpoints.

      Crapping on people's privacy craps on everyone equally no matter who, what or how you are.

      It would be like hiring Kathleen Sebelius to the board of AETNA.

      "Maybe now isn't a good time, sorry"

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    56. Re:Good choice by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      The attacks crippled the economy, not the president.

      Iraq was already draining resources pre-war. No fly zones are expensive and protecting Kuwait is/was as well.

      I doubt there would be any president who wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.

      However, I will admit the war is taking too long. Play to win or don't play at all.

      After the invasion of Iraq, Kadafi got in line and played ball, and did everything we demanded. Look where that got him under Obama. Now, there is zero incentive to do what the US tells you.

      You will never find an army that goes to war with everything they want. NEVER. You will never find a army that is 100% ready to go to war. NEVER. If the commanders say they are, they are covering their asses. There are just degrees of readiness.

      Would you prefer we not use the Reserves and just keep a larger standing army? Using the Reserve is a great way to save some money and great for the Reserve.

      PTSD does exist, but not in the numbers the press would have you believe. Deployments do not automatically cause PTSD and having PTSD does not necessarily make you incapable of doing multiple tours.

      Veteran care is as good as it's ever been. It sucks, but you can't expect government agencies to provide any level of service or care worth a dam in the first place.

      Yes, they did lower the standards to get in. That's what you do when you need people and don't want to draft. You'd rather serve next to somebody who fits the perfect standard but does not want to be there and does not give a damn if the guy next to him dies, or serve next to somebody who isn't perfect but would give his life to watch your back?

       

    57. Re:Good choice by seffala · · Score: 1

      Your figures are a few orders of magnitude too low.

      few=3.
      So 10^3=1000, times 3 = 3000.

      Sounds like Saddam killing 3000 people/year is still better than the 650,000 deaths the war caused. (src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... )

      Surely Saddam won't live 216 years.

    58. Re:Good choice by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Saddam managed to kill several million people.

      They have found hundreds of mass graves in Iraq, and that doesn't count the mass slaughter of the Kurds.

      The 650,000 figure is discredited. It was a politicized study bought and paid for by George Soros.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    59. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Russia is a democracy
      No it's not.

      http://www.freedomhouse.org/country/russia

    60. Re:Good choice by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you define war as "any day in which the US has troops overseas and the president is Republican".

      We've never had a war of territorial acquisition, is the thing (unless you count that War of Northern Aggression ;) ). The big exception to "capitalist democracies don't go to war" was WWI. WWI was arguably the stupidest thing the human race has ever done, and proof of how far people can get from acting in their self-interest. While I'd really like to think we're past that now, I can't.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    61. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Dropbox is compromised. I will never use it. Do not pay attention to her babbling, it is all schizophrenic babbling and it comes off far sources mixed without meaning. She ll stress names without facts, it is typical of Africans.

    62. Re:Good choice by spectrumlogic · · Score: 1

      Pardon my straight forward reply...but that's plain stupid...it is the definition of insanity...unless you want to support the development of a surveillance state...then nevermind...perfect plan. This appointment is an epic blunder on so many levels it defies imagination. These guys have to believe there is no reason to avoid the appearance of impropriety...potentially coercion could explain it. Tin foil hat time.

    63. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddam killed or disappeared 300,000+ people in his 30 years as "ruler".

      This is a Amnesty International statistic. Not a Conservative think tank propaganda number.

      And, like everything in life... it's not black and white. Ask the Kurds if they are better off now.

    64. Re:Good choice by Sciath · · Score: 1

      Cost to whom? The Sunnis in Iraq might not agree. And I seem to remember from a fairly recent news article there are many in Iraq that would rather trade the relative "stability" Iraq had under Hussein with the constant chaos they now live under threat of. And who's to say that other methods of dealing with Hussein (rather than war) wouldn't have been more efficient, incurred far lower mortality and property damage and would've been far less costly for the U.S. RICE was one of the war (and anti-First Amendment/surveillance) hawks in the Bush administration. I certainly wouldn't trust her with my civil liberties no matter what her expertise. It's a poor decision for a technology company. It throws their corporate operating principles into question to have such surveillance oriented personnel on their corporate board.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    65. Re:Good choice by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I think it is unfortunate, but the question is will it pass? Iraq's legislature works like others, any member can introduce a bill. The difficult part is getting enough support to pass. There are religious party members that are likely to be on both sides of this. The secular parties are likely to oppose it. We'll see what the vote is, and even if it passes if it survives both the courts and future legislatures.

      Iraq bill sparks fury over child marriage claims

      Analysts have, however, dismissed the bill as politicking, and say it is highly unlikely to make it through Iraq’s Council of Representatives. ...

      The fierce debate may, however, turn out to be moot, with analysts predicting that the bill is unlikely to be passed before legislative elections next month, if at all. ...

        “Submitting this bill — at this moment — is for political and electoral reasons.”

      -----

      It has also faced opposition from religious leaders, with Bashir Najafi, one of Shiite Islam’s most senior clerics, issuing a fatwa this month saying the bill has several “legal and doctrinal” problems which “no scholar can agree with.” -- Draconian Iraq bill sparks fury

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    66. Re:Good choice by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Your objections about Rice are nonsense. She was the Secretary of State and would have had essentially nothing to do with domestic surveillance and First Amendment issues. She has no power to affect your civil liberties now, or probably in the past. He prior job has no implications for Drop Box, and it doesn't imply anything about their operating principles. You're just kind of free styling there.

      Other methods were tried with Iraq. They didn't work. Saddam was on the path to buying his way out of sanctions with enormous bribes from the Oil for Food scandal money. Diverting that money was what was doing enormous damage to Iraq. He also took money intended for food and medicine and used it to build large numbers of huge expensive palaces and buy weapons.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    67. Re:Good choice by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Thankyou.

    68. Re:Good choice by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      > The attacks crippled the economy, not the president.

      The attacks were a blip on the economy. A giant tax refund and 2 wars put the nation into a massive deficit, and the global banking crisis devastated the economy.

      Did you sleep through 2008?

  2. foxes in charge of the henhouse by globaljustin · · Score: 0

    How do companies talk themselves into ridiculous moves like this?

    This is an order of magnitude worse than Yahoo hiring Katie Couric.

    I get apoplectic when I see news like this...reminds me of Steve Schmidt on Colbert saying only criminals want privacy

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:foxes in charge of the henhouse by JeffAtl · · Score: 1, Troll

      ...reminds me of Steve Schmidt on Colbert saying only criminals want privacy

      You can't take Stephen Colbert seriously - it's a comedy show where he portrays a republican caricature.

  3. So everyone protesting her is a racist by SensitiveMale · · Score: 0, Troll

    And TechDirt can suck a bag of dicks.

    1. Re:So everyone protesting her is a racist by mi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly. How can the same people, who answer every criticism of a Black President with deep and loud suspic..., nay, accusations of racism, boycott a Black Secretary of State?

      Not only are they racist themselves then, they are sexist too.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  4. Force her out! by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quick, let's boycott Dropbox so we can force her out of the company. Then after we've succeeded we can have a another Slashdot story lamenting how intolerant we've all become and we can point fingers at everyone else.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Force her out! by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      I'm not going to 'boycott' them, but I am going to stop using them, and I now no longer care who they have on their board.

      I am disconnecting anything which I have which still points to DropBox since I haven't used it in a while anyway.

      But for a company which does cloud storage to expect that people won't look at that appointment and say "oh hell no", they're sadly mistaken. You might as well appoint Alberto Gonzales as a Constitutional scholar and privacy expert.

      I'm betting DropBox suddenly sees a drop in usage.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Force her out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfect idea for getting rid of all those 4 gig free accounts everyone has.

    3. Re:Force her out! by mi · · Score: 2

      I am disconnecting anything which I have which still points to DropBox since I haven't used it in a while anyway.

      And I am going to install their app on my parents' phones too now, whereas before I only had it my own.

      You might as well appoint Alberto Gonzales as a Constitutional scholar and privacy expert.

      I'll certainly take Mr. Gonzales over Mr. Holder, who, without being much of an expert in anything (not even manners or sense of decorum), presided over dramatic expansion of warrant-less surveillance.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Force her out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then stop using everything having to do with technology. Care to guess how many of the top tier field service techs for the big iron companies (IBM, SUN(Oracle), Cisco, et. al) earned a second paycheck from 3 letter agencies around the world to do a little "extra" work when they went into service certain mainframes or other servers or equipment?

      Same goes for employees of Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.. If the company says no, it doesn't matter, because those 3 letter agencies will plant their own people or find willing collaborators.

    5. Re:Force her out! by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll certainly take Mr. Gonzales over Mr. Holder

      As opposed to Gonzales who said habeus corpus wasn't really a right? Who said that torture was OK?

      You can keep him.

      I'm not defending Holder, but Gonzales didn't seem to have the barest clue about what the Constitution said and what it meant.

      Sorry, but pretty much anybody from the Bush era (and quite honestly a bunch who are still in Washington) has no business working at a place which has a privacy policy.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Force her out! by khasim · · Score: 1

      But for a company which does cloud storage to expect that people won't look at that appointment and say "oh hell no", they're sadly mistaken.

      Seriously. Who would look at her record and think "Yep! My data is safe with that company. They're 100% supportive of my security and privacy."

    7. Re:Force her out! by JDAustin · · Score: 1

      Whats worse, a AG who doesn't know or AG who knows and ignores it anyways.

    8. Re:Force her out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But for a company which does cloud storage to expect that people won't look at that appointment and say "oh hell no", they're sadly mistaken.

      Seriously. Who would look at her record and think "Yep! My data is safe with that company. They're 100% supportive of my security and privacy."

      Who would look at what dropbox does and think "yep, there's a good service to store my incriminating evidence".

    9. Re:Force her out! by lgw · · Score: 1

      The NSA had a great track record of security and (internal) privacy while she was national security advisor. All the leaks happened after she left.

      Do you think they wanted her for ethical advice?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Force her out! by khasim · · Score: 1

      Whats worse, a AG who doesn't know or AG who knows and ignores it anyways.

      It's not an autocracy.

      You vote in the least problematic option and then you work with the other branches to limit the problems.

      I voted for Obama. Twice. Because I thought the other options were worse. And now I oppose many of Obama's policies. And I let my Senators and Representatives know my opinions.

    11. Re:Force her out! by Krojack · · Score: 1

      I'm betting they see a very small drop in usage/users. I'm going to pick a random percent out of my ass and guess that less than 10% of Dropbox users will even know about her getting on the board and of that a very small % will care enough to drop the service.

      But I'm just making a wild guess and have nothing to base my numbers on.

    12. Re:Force her out! by litehacksaur111 · · Score: 1

      What the fuck does this have to do with tolerance. Why would I want someone who supports the Patriot Act, NSA, TSA, basically everything big brotherish to sit on the board of a cloud based storage company. That basically says to me that I should expect that the data will be sold to the highest bidder and I have no privacy.

    13. Re:Force her out! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Dick Cheney?

    14. Re:Force her out! by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      As opposed to Gonzales who said habeus corpus wasn't really a right?

      I could suggest you got your J.D. from DeVry but that would be an insult.

      To them.

      Kinko's?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Force her out! by mi · · Score: 1

      Whats worse, a AG who doesn't know or AG who knows and ignores it anyways.

      Definitely the former. Absolutely. Because the law-enforcer ignorant of the law is likely to violate far more laws — in a worse manner — than the knowledgeable one, who'll only break those he must.

      And, BTW, it remains rather arguable, whether Gonzales has broken any laws...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:Force her out! by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gonzales who said habeus corpus wasn't really a right

      So did Abraham Lincoln...

      Who said that torture was OK?

      For the umpteenth time: waterboarding is not torture. At most, it is "torture-lite" — anything, from which the subject walks away without bodily harm, does not qualify.

      Sorry, but pretty much anybody from the Bush era (and quite honestly a bunch who are still in Washington) has no business working at a place which has a privacy policy.

      First of all, Obama's era is only worse in this regard. I understand — and share — your contempt for all government officials, because, regardless of the party they all tend to buy into the "government knows better" concept. But a company with a privacy policy must be able to balance users' privacy with the government's requests (and demands) for cooperation.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    17. Re:Force her out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm uninstalling DropBox from my system now. I don't use it much anyway. I'm keeping UbuntuOne as my primary cloud storage service until Canonical shuts it down in June. I'm thinking I'll just have to roll my own cloud system with http://owncloud.org/ or maybe check out some of the distributed peer-to-peer cryptocloud storage projects that are just getting off the ground. You can't really trust a third party with your data any longer.

    18. Re:Force her out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      knows & ignores it, what are you stupid?

    19. Re:Force her out! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'd say don't use it because there's now someone whose job was reading your mail in charge of it. Simple enough?

      Seriously guys, dropbox has had so many problems that it would have failed long ago without the hype. If you are putting anything there that you wouldn't want seen on the front page of a newspaper then you are using it the wrong way.

    20. Re:Force her out! by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For the umpteenth time: waterboarding is not torture

      It was torture when the North Koreans were doing it to US prisoners of war. Please tell me what has changed.

    21. Re:Force her out! by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      Your mind can be shredded in a day. It wouldn't even be 'you' walking away.

      What a foolish comment you've made.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    22. Re:Force her out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, no Mozilla-riser CEO banshee screams? (or so few)
      NSA must be happy, their own in at the top.
      If I used Dropbox, which I don't, I would get my files the hell out of there!

    23. Re:Force her out! by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      For the umpteenth time: waterboarding is not torture. At most, it is "torture-lite" â" anything, from which the subject walks away without bodily harm, does not qualify.

      So if you don't consider brain to be part of your body, then yes you are right. And that certainly must be true because you don't have one.

      Asshole.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    24. Re:Force her out! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      So, you have now shown you are an idiot. Twice over and more*. And have full justification for it in your mind.

      Your actions now, opposing the very thing you supported, have no relevance. They know you are going to vote for Obama's successor, or at the least not vote for the main opposition. So you are a known entity, and can be safely ignored.

      *You think President Obama isn't being an autocrat? What do you call someone who tells Congress that he will make laws as he sees fit since they won't make the laws he wants?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    25. Re:Force her out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the false dilemma.

      The least problematic was Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and Jill Stein in 2012. Instead you voted for a conservative empty shell with no principles that throws crumbs to the Democratic base every 4 years. Congratulations!

    26. Re:Force her out! by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      stop using is pretty much how to conduct a boycott.

    27. Re:Force her out! by quax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Waterboarding is regarded as torture by any other civilized country of the world.

      Doesn't matter if you type you fingers bloody or stomp your feet to pretend otherwise. Just shows what America is made of these days ... not the right stuff.

    28. Re:Force her out! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I went for Jill Stein in '12. My sig isn't as off-the-wall as it may at first seem.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    29. Re:Force her out! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      For the umpteenth time: waterboarding is not torture. At most, it is "torture-lite" â" anything, from which the subject walks away without bodily harm, does not qualify.

      You should read about some of the inventive methods of psychological torture, starting with sleep deprivation. It is entirely possible to render a person unable to function without even touching them. Hell, a person with bipolar disorder can torture themselves into forgetting how to wash themselves. Literally forget how to bathe.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    30. Re:Force her out! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Big deal, so I'm neither a lawyer nor up on my latin.

      I still know what it means, and that Gonzales said it didn't exist as a right.

      Do you have anything intelligent to add to the topic?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    31. Re:Force her out! by harrkev · · Score: 1

      So, you won't approve if they dump Rice and get somebody from the Obama administration, right?

      Obama was certainly in a position to undo the damage that Bush did, but he took it to the next level.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    32. Re:Force her out! by litehacksaur111 · · Score: 1

      That's right. I don't use dropbox and never will as long as they have ANYONE on their board who supports the NSA. I am against the NSA, TSA, patriot act, and I think those issues are where I share ground with intelligent conservatives.

    33. Re:Force her out! by mi · · Score: 1

      It was torture when the North Koreans were doing it to US prisoners of war.

      Citation needed.

      Please tell me what has changed.

      You can not do even that (whatever it is called) to POWs, Geneva Conventions are quite explicit about it.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    34. Re:Force her out! by mi · · Score: 1

      Asshole.

      Insults... Ran out of arguments so quickly? How pathetic, yet how typical...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    35. Re:Force her out! by mi · · Score: 1

      Waterboarding is regarded as torture by any other civilized country of the world.

      Only until they find it necessary to use it in order to defend their citizenry.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    36. Re:Force her out! by mi · · Score: 1

      Your mind can be shredded in a day. It wouldn't even be 'you' walking away.

      Perhaps, it could. But it did not, by all accounts, happen to the four or five thugs, who were subjected to waterboarding.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    37. Re:Force her out! by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      Nice cherry picking there. But you are still wrong though as you completely ignored the argument.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    38. Re:Force her out! by quax · · Score: 1

      Oh please. As if there has never been terrorism before 9/11. The UK was in a genuine war with the IRA, Germany had the RAF, Italy the Red Brigades and France fought several nasty wars in North Africa after WW2.

      Some of the nastier conflicts saw their share of atrocities, but there was never an attempt to redefine and legalize torture. Stooping low is bad, but losing all perspective is far worse.

    39. Re:Force her out! by mi · · Score: 0

      Some of the nastier conflicts saw their share of atrocities, but there was never an attempt to redefine and legalize torture.

      And how do you know, that there was not? Because foreign democracies aren't as open as ours?

      But, for the umpteenth + first time: waterboarding is not torture. Torture works via pain. Waterboarding causes not pain, but fear. Calling it "psychological torture" does not make it "torture" any more, than a guinea pig is a pig.

      Stooping low is bad

      Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.George Orwel

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    40. Re:Force her out! by quax · · Score: 1

      Please stop misquoting Orwel, he was talking about war not about abusing prisoners.

      "foreign democracies aren't as open as ours"

      Of course how could any foreign democracy ever be as open as the US. Nothing in Europe or the rest of the world could *ever* touch the US in openness.

      Hope you're feeling all snug and cozy under your blanket of US exceptionalism.

      And of course you are completely missing the point, no surprise there. None of these foreign democracies ever legalized torture. In cases where the truth is revealed the foreign public reacts with well deserved disgust and outrage. The fact that so many in the US seem to be numbed to the violence conducted in its name is what's most disturbing.

      "waterboarding is not torture"

      The only Iraq war cheerleader with an ounce of honor actually checked this for himself. Christopher Hitchens changed his tune afterwards.

      Your opinion in the matter is completely irrelevant, the procedure just like mock executions is of course well outside any civilized standard.

      That you happily put yourself there speaks for itself, and makes my point in highlighting how far the US has fallen.

      Fortunately some of this moral cravenness is offset by exceptional Americans like Snowden and Greenwald. Over the long run I am optimistic that the US will regain its misplaced moral compass.

    41. Re:Force her out! by mi · · Score: 1

      Please stop misquoting Orwel, he was talking about war not about abusing prisoners.

      First of all, whoever Orwel was talking about, I did not "misquote" him — the quote is perfectly accurate.

      As for who he was talking about — you are attempting to make a distinction without difference. The idea remains the same — you can abjure waterboarding as "stooping low" all you want, but you are only able to do that, because others are waterboarding your enemies on your behalf.

      Hope you're feeling all snug and cozy under your blanket of US exceptionalism.

      Yes, thank you, the only drawback of the US exceptionalism is the nasty butthurt it is causing among citizens of lesser countries...

      Christopher Hitchens changed his tune afterwards.

      I'm sure, Mr. Hitchens, whoever he is, did not like it — by all descriptions, it feels horrible. It does not change the facts I stated: waterboarding works by fear, rather than pain. That sets it aside from "torture".

      It may still be "bad", or even "outside any civilized standard", but that's not what I was saying: it is not torture.

      Your opinion in the matter is completely irrelevant

      Why, thank you, why didn't you say so from the beginning? Until now I labored under assumption, that I'm facing a good faith opponent...

      That you happily put yourself there

      Happily? Where did you get the "happily" part? Of course, I'm very much unhappy, that we — the US — had to apply the questionable procedures to the captured enemies in order to save ourselves from actions of their still-at-large comrades. But we had to — broken spirits of the handful of bona-fide terrorists aren't worth the lives of Americans, civilians or otherwise, and I'm glad, the Bush Administration had "the minerals" to act as it did.

      makes my point in highlighting how far the US has fallen.

      You are displaying a fantastic naivette, if you believe, the US — like all others — have not used this and similar methods in the past. That we are now more open about it, rather than being "shocked, shocked, waterboarding is going on here", is a good sign.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    42. Re:Force her out! by quax · · Score: 1

      Not only is it morally reprehensible, it is not even effective.

      And yes, it is torture.

      The Senate report's findings are not some surprisingly new or unforeseeable result. This was well established and repeatedly pointed out to the Bush administration.

      And No, the greatest US generation did not do this.

      Only in a deeply warped society would some weasel lawyers construct the kind of twisted logic that you are espousing. Your definition is so far outside the mainstream, it doesn't even qualify as a joke. So yes, it is irrelevant.

      And while I am happy that you are not happy about this state of affairs, it doesn't make a yota of difference. Your rational is irrational and the method profoundly wrong.

      As to being able to catch terrorists without torture, you didn't pay attention to what I earlier wrote. We got all the RAF bad guys and one of the worst terrorists before Bin Laden was caught the old fashioned way, with solid intelligence and diplomacy.

      Terrorism was always a reality in most Western countries (but North America) and we dealt with it without misplacing our values.

      If you never even heard of Hitchens it's a pretty save bet that you never heard about any of this foreign history, and live on a Faux News diet.

      Maybe you should try to travel the world a bit.

       

  5. Baggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know you all think Bush and Obama are the same, but there's no way Secretary Rice has "close connections to the intelligence community" under the Obama administration.

    1. Re:Baggage? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I wish you didn't post as AC so I could mod this up.

    2. Re:Baggage? by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      You still could have... until you posted.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Baggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I know you all think Bush and Obama are the same, but there's no way Secretary Rice has "close connections to the intelligence community" under the Obama administration.

      Why do you say that? How do we know she's not helping assassinate American citizens abroad or helping keep Gitmo open? I mean, I thought Obama was going to change all that, but it looks like he plans to help the Democrats win the next election by hammering them on a divisive social issue and ignore all that stuff.

    4. Re:Baggage? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I just modded it up three times.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  6. Surely by Eddi3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Brendan Eich could be forced out for a $1,000 donation, surely Ms. Rice can be for influencing privacy policy herself, something which is highly relevant to this business. In addition, she has defended her position since leaving office. I think the real question here is where does this end?

    1. Re:Surely by Goaway · · Score: 0

      I'm just going to sit here and wait for everyone who spoke up in defense of Eich to now defend Rice, too.

      I'm sure they'll be here any minute now.

    2. Re:Surely by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Defend her from what? She's getting hired- not fired (or having to resign for the good of the company). Are there campaigns to try and get her forced out that I am unaware of?

    3. Re:Surely by Goaway · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course there are:

      http://www.drop-dropbox.com/

    4. Re:Surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod that up +5 informative !!!!111one!

      nonetheless the lack of opensource alternatives in that website comes to an eye. give http://sparkleshare.org/ a spin!

    5. Re:Surely by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      didn't time magazine point out that she's happy being closeted? because being openly gay would mean taking on the GOP establishment. she'd much rather be a tool.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    6. Re:Surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you drop 'drop' from dropbox.com you get box.com
      It's like magic.

    7. Re:Surely by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      So funny, not a single one of you gave a shit when Janet Napolitano supported doubling down on all Bush policies. Nor was there an uproar when she cashed out. All Dr. Rice need due is say she's a lesbian and everyone will run back to their little basement cubbies.

  7. meh by schneidafunk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really don't care, this is a private company and they can hire who they want to. That being said, I assumed dropbox already was infiltrated by the NSA.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:meh by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That being said, I assumed dropbox already was infiltrated by the NSA.

      And now it's confirmed. Freaking astute move by the board members with gag orders and National Security Letters if you ask me.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:meh by schneidafunk · · Score: 2

      Somewhat related, I just discovered dropbox also updated their privacy policy effective since March 24.

      http://www.entrepreneur.com/ar...

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't care, this is a private company and they can hire who they want to. That being said, I assumed dropbox already was infiltrated by the NSA.

      Well isn't dropbox built on Amazon infrastructure? Speaking of companies beholden to the US government.

    4. Re:meh by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Freaking astute move by the board members with gag orders and National Security Letters if you ask me.

      If you keep giving nonsense answers like that nobody will ask you.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:meh by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I really don't care, this is a private company and they can hire who they want to. That being said, I assumed dropbox already was infiltrated by the NSA.

      Um ... Obama is currently in charge of the NSA. And has been for over five years.

      And you are paranoid about ... Rice?

  8. Re:Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Stop trolling the conversation with the race card. The reason it was controversial is that she most likely knew about the NSA spying on all of us and told us nothing. At best she was complacent. There is no reason to think that she will behave differently now.

  9. Oh why not? by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    She was the provost of Stanford University, she's got a huge rolodex in government and SillyCon Valley. She's also obviously got a big background in IR and particularly working with Russia and Africa, which are both huge growth markets for Internet companies.

    Her biggest crime was not asking all the right questions, and didn't have to swag necessary to challenge Cheney or Rumsfeld, not that she was particularly motivated. She's proven to be a pretty bad administrator and manager, but she's going on the Board, not into management.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    1. Re:Oh why not? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really?

      She was intimately involved in the decision to go to war with Iraq and spoke publicly in support of it.

      She was an integral part of the Bush administration's campaign of lies surrounding the war, working to further public support of the war by lying about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

      Rice played a central role in affirming the "legality" of the Bush administration's torture program.

      Rice not only spoke in favor of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program and expansive domestic surveillance program, she authorized the warrantless wiretap of UN Security Council members.

      But you keep thinking that a extremely brilliant and accomplished individual, having obtained her Masters degree at age 20, isn't smart enough to ask the right questions or able to go toe to toe with Cheney or Rumsfeld....

    2. Re:Oh why not? by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is not quite true. To simplify, she was a neocon who was overconfident of what US military force could do. That would put her on the side of Dick Cheney, but on the opposite side of Rumsfeld and Powell who were urging caution.

      I will second you point on that she is very sharp but that her management of the state department was subpar.

    3. Re:Oh why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh please. We all know the real reason they hired her is because they only have to pay her 77% of what they'd pay an equivalent man. She's a bargain!

    4. Re:Oh why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you keep thinking that a extremely brilliant and accomplished individual, having obtained her Masters degree at age 20, isn't smart enough to ask the right questions or able to go toe to toe with Cheney or Rumsfeld....
       
      There is no accountability in the highest ranks of government anymore. Just look at Holder and Clinton.
       
      Seriously, no one from the federal government in the last 30 years has ever faced the kinds of charges they deserve to.

    5. Re:Oh why not? by JDAustin · · Score: 1

      US military did the job, the problem goes back to the post invasion policies as defined by Paul Bremer which made things worse. Had we used de-nazification policies on the Baath party, the insurgency would have been much more limited. Remember, even in post-WW2 germany, 4-5k soldiers died to German partisans (aka insurgents).

    6. Re:Oh why not? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've said this before, the US Military does obliterating an opposing force quite well. Which serves well when the objective is the liberation of a territory from hostile occupation, where the US can go in, win, and then the local populace can quickly get things back the way it was. It does not do occupation very well nor really has outside of the Wester Hemisphere.

      The exception being post World War II with the Marshal Plan. Which planning for that began in 1943 and by 1945 the government had managed to twist the arms of a lot of academics, economists, finance, and high ranking industry officials to spend two years post war to help rebuild western Europe.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    7. Re:Oh why not? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But you keep thinking that a extremely brilliant and accomplished individual, having obtained her Masters degree at age 20, isn't smart enough to ask the right questions or able to go toe to toe with Cheney or Rumsfeld....

      The problem is that, while she is smart, she is also ideological.

      If her ideology conflicts with the facts, the ideology wins.

      Not only was she NOT willing to ask question, she WAS willing to give press interviews with WRONG information. Because that WRONG information suited her ideology. Even though it would cost lives.

      NOT the kind of person YOU want on the Board of Directors of a company tasked with providing access to YOUR data.

      She didn't care enough about the lives that would be lost to ask any questions. And she cared so little for those lives that she provided wrong information to support the drive to war. Do you think that your DATA will mean more to her than that?

    8. Re:Oh why not? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Maybe – hindsight is 20/20. Everybody believed that the US would win the initial ground war. The long game was a different matter. My point is that the neocons felt that a small military force could rapidly democratize Iraq – that the population was yearning for a western democratic system. Some neocons where talking about probably regime change in Syria and Iran within a few years. Widely optimistic.

      From what I have read about counter insurgency / pacification, it takes large committed force years on the ground to get the job done.

    9. Re:Oh why not? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      She gave speeches strongly advocating war in Iraq, and was an integral part of the whole process that led to a war which killed over 100,000 people. It was later solidly established that the people at the very top of the Bush administration knew their excuses for war were BS and kept repeating them anyway, and ignoring all the evidence that they were wrong.

      I keep reading about how intelligent this woman is. But given the things she's done, she sounds pretty goddamn dumb to me. It's not everyone who can say their mistakes led directly to mass death.

    10. Re:Oh why not? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      My point is that the neocons felt that a small military force could rapidly democratize Iraq â" that the population was yearning for a western democratic system.

      A natural, if naive, assumption for anyone brought up in one.

      Sadly, the evidence seems to show that when moon cultists depose a dictator the first thing they do is install another one.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Oh why not? by chiefmojorising · · Score: 1

      *nod*

      Kinda like my hammer is really good at driving nails but isn't so good at cleaning windows. Right tool for the job and all that. If your military isn't being used to smash another military you're probably doing it wrong.

      Ah, crap. That should've been a car analogy.

    12. Re:Oh why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've said this before, the US Military does obliterating an opposing force quite well. Which serves well when the objective is the liberation of a territory from hostile occupation, where the US can go in, win, and then the local populace can quickly get things back the way it was. It does not do occupation very well nor really has outside of the Wester Hemisphere. The exception being post World War II with the Marshal Plan. Which planning for that began in 1943 and by 1945 the government had managed to twist the arms of a lot of academics, economists, finance, and high ranking industry officials to spend two years post war to help rebuild western Europe.

      FWIW, a lot of us former hawks thought that was the real plan for Iraq. Go in, kill everything, set up client state, and GTFO. Either we were wrong (and the actual plan was to go in and turn it into a stalemate to funnel trillions to preferred contractors) or the execution was incompetent (firing Shinseki for asking for too many men, Rumsfeld's belief in the US military's "transformation" that took place under his watch, etc.)

      Anyways, we were wrong. Really really wrong, and for what very little it's worth, I'm sorry I fell for it.

    13. Re:Oh why not? by serbanp · · Score: 1

      The exception being post World War II with the Marshal Plan. Which planning for that began in 1943 and by 1945 the government had managed to twist the arms of a lot of academics, economists, finance, and high ranking industry officials to spend two years post war to help rebuild western Europe.

      Are you that ill-informed or just plain stupid? The Marshall plan, while quite successful, was mostly a hacked stop-gap idea in the wake of the very disastrous Morgenthau plan.

      Out of respect for the hundreds of thousand German people who perished after the end of WW2, please get more informed instead of spouting elementary-level history nonsense.

    14. Re:Oh why not? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Rumsfeld's belief in the US military's "transformation" that took place under his watch

      He did that all right - twice. He wanted braindead "warriors" instead of professional solders. I wonder if the military has recovered from Rumsfeld yet?

    15. Re:Oh why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG! You yanks has a win with your civil war and a lucky fluke of a win to wwii, cause some spastic thought splitting an atom was a bright idea. Everything else has been straight loses, fading loses or depraved whacking of your rods. Please cease and desist from making us all gag at your nonsense winning claims that are in fact a sad and suckful caravan of lies. Admit to the truest truth of the yanky doodle world conquest and that true fact is arm sales. Yes indeed, you yanky jokers are in the gun sellin' business and every single war that you pityfully drag poor third world or underdeveloped countries into results in a great unimaginable shitload of guns being sold by yanky doodle dandy armaments companies. That is the truest truth of the American Dream. One big hard sell of slidy slidy bangy bangy weapuns. Prove my wrong... but no you can't cause your argument sux and mine is true.

    16. Re:Oh why not? by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      She was an integral part in shaping the disastrous foreign policy that led up to the war. In an interview before the inauguration (maybe even before the election itself) on CNN she was telling the interviewer that when in power she and the rest of the team would make an end to the 'Clinton multilateralism'.

      In other words, she was pushing for the disastrous 'our way or the highway' policies of the Bush Administration since before she even got to the State Department.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    17. Re:Oh why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I am sure you will be calling for all the Obama administration assholes to be jobless for the rest of their lives too?
      Please tell us who in the Obama inner circle or anywhere in the USA even tells Obama anything but "yes boss"?
      At least Rice is smart, those fucking in the WH now are not.

    18. Re:Oh why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      never heard that before "4-5k soldiers died to German partisans (aka insurgents)", can you cite the source?

  10. Re:Wiretapping? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? National Security Advisor who supports wire tapping sitting on the board for a cloud based storage solution company. Could your post be code for stupid.

  11. My Fellow Board Members... by rbrander · · Score: 1

    ...we must not let the next warning from ShareFiles.com be a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud!
    We must send our youngest interns to effect regime change on their board!
    Thank you, and God Bless Dropbox!

  12. Congratulations Dropbox ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been meaning to disable this for a while.

    If she's on your board, I'll get that done now.

    There is now zero room to trust DropBox as an entity.

    1. Re:Congratulations Dropbox ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Some of us never trusted DropBox in the first place.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  13. Low even for Slashdot by shellster_dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's quit pretending this is anything but an attempt to force her out because she is/was a Republican.

    If she were a Democrat, the article would talk about the racist/sexist Republicans that were trying to force her out.

    The Democrats have only enhanced the spying and wiretapping, but you don't get outcry's about the likes of Facebook the Zuckerberg's of the world who are huge Democrat donors.

    I love to see that "tolerance" the left is famous for.

    1. Re:Low even for Slashdot by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      Actually there have been every time Facebook changes it's privacy policy. It helps to pay attention instead of looking like an ass.

    2. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure Slashdot is going to freak out when Keith Alexander takes a place in Microsoft's board of directors. Party has nothing to do with it, involvement with spying on US citizens has everything to do with it.

    3. Re:Low even for Slashdot by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

      Nice try,

      Facebook changing THEIR privacy policy directly affects users. The outcry is justified and has nothing to do with the politics of their CEO or board. This issue is entirely different. People are calling for boycotts and pressure because a perfectly capable board member used to work for the Bush administration which started a wiretapping program. It has NOTHING to do with what she personally has done nor what she has done as a board member of the Dropbox company.

      Thanks for playing, next time try using your head...

    4. Re:Low even for Slashdot by BrainRam · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't make a comment at all on this. But I will. I also hate the term tolerance, and prefer "acceptance". Tolerance means you hate something, but you deal with it anyway. I don't tolerate tolerance.

      So there you go.

    5. Re:Low even for Slashdot by hsmith · · Score: 0

      Everyone would be falling over their dicks if it were Hillary and not Rice to support her as a good idea.

    6. Re:Low even for Slashdot by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      I see so you want the policy to be in place so that you can be outraged that it happened instead of preventing it from happening.

      I see the hamster stopped running in it's wheel.

    7. Re:Low even for Slashdot by shellster_dude · · Score: 2

      I see so you want the policy to be in place so that you can be outraged that it happened instead of preventing it from happening.

      Nice slippery slope fallacy. You're 0 for 2. Care to try again?

    8. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      I love to see that "tolerance" the left is famous for.

      And we've seen it from the Soviet gulags to the Khmer Rouge's killing fields.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    9. Re:Low even for Slashdot by dcollins · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's say Republican Senator Susan Collins took this position instead. Then: No issue and no uproar.

      The problem is not that Rice is a Republican, it's that she was a part of the most terrifying Republican administration in history, and oversaw defense of torture and mass-surveillance wiretapping programs.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    10. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Hear that ringing? I think that might be 1994 calling...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Low even for Slashdot by JeffAtl · · Score: 2

      it's that she was a part of the most terrifying Republican administration in history, and oversaw defense of torture and mass-surveillance wiretapping programs.

      So if she had been part of the most terrifying Democrat administration in history, it would be ok?

      To be clear, I consider both parties to be clowns. They are mostly all friends and laugh at all the hardcore party partisans that get all worked up and think it's real. It's just like pro wrestling. You're just a mark.

    12. Re:Low even for Slashdot by JDAustin · · Score: 1, Troll

      I hope you consider the Obama admin one of the most terrifying Democratic admins in history then as they oversaw defense of drone assassinations and much more expanded mass-surveillance. Lets add in gun-running to mexico, getting our ambassador to Libya and 3 others dead and then lying about it, enacting policies that encourage the militarization of local police, etc. Of course it takes a lot to surpass the Woodrow Wilson admin with their arresting journalists and shutting down newspapers that were their enemies. Be heh...Obama has two more years still.

      BTW, since I'm being critical of Obama, does that mean I'm now basically a klan member? At least according to Hank Aaron it is...

    13. Re:Low even for Slashdot by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      I think if James Clapper or Keith Alexander joined the board of DropBox you'd see the same issues. But they haven't.

      Being a donor to one of two political choices (or often both) is one thing. That's very, very far removed from power. Actually having started wars whilst being Secretary of State is entirely different.

    14. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Perfect. Every bug report could be immediately closed our with a resolution of "What difference does it make?".

    15. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Well, he couldn't have said "the most terrifying administration in history" anymore, could he?

    16. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say Republican Senator Susan Collins took this position instead. Then: No issue and no uproar.

      The problem is not that Rice is a Republican, it's that she was a part of the most terrifying Republican administration in history, and oversaw defense of torture and mass-surveillance wiretapping programs.

      How's that worse than overseeing the "extrajudicial killing" of US citizens and mass-surveillance wiretapping programs, what the "most terrifying Democratic administration in history" is STILL going about doing (along with turning the IRS into a criminal political hack attack-dog organization...)

    17. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, since I'm being critical of Obama, does that mean I'm now basically a klan member? At least according to Hank Aaron it is...

      No, you just need to lay off the Faux News. You are a republifacts fountain.

    18. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron, go away.

    19. Re:Low even for Slashdot by JDAustin · · Score: 1

      Blah Blah Blah Fox News Blah Blah Blah.

      How about responding to the substance?

    20. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you consider the Obama admin one of the most terrifying Democratic admins in history then as they oversaw defense of drone assassinations and much more expanded mass-surveillance. Lets add in gun-running to mexico, getting our ambassador to Libya and 3 others dead and then lying about it, enacting policies that encourage the militarization of local police, etc. Of course it takes a lot to surpass the Woodrow Wilson admin with their arresting journalists and shutting down newspapers that were their enemies. Be heh...Obama has two more years still.

      BTW, since I'm being critical of Obama, does that mean I'm now basically a klan member? At least according to Hank Aaron it is...

      You are definitely one of the stupidest fucking people on /. at least.

      http://gkrouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/11089_615017145190467_1147559393_n.png?w=640&h=340

      Glad you think that 4 is more than 60 and conveniently forget that the Republicans refused requested funding for Libya. Or that getting nearly 40,000 Americans killed or wounded is worse than drone strikes.

      Also all that survellience was started or heavily expanded under Bush.

      Really, you are just a traitor to the American people and scum. Do the right thing and use your second amendment rights to blow your head off.

    21. Re:Low even for Slashdot by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So if she had been part of the most terrifying Democrat administration in history, it would be ok?

      The only difference is you would be joining in to ask for them to step down as well.

    22. Re:Low even for Slashdot by quax · · Score: 1

      As a German living in Canada I couldn't care less what party she belongs to.

      Given her track record of lies and obfuscation, this is such bad PR that I can only conclude dropbox either completely does not understand its international customers, or doesn't care to lose them.

    23. Re:Low even for Slashdot by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > she was a part of the most terrifying Republican administration in history,

      The South in the Civil War might disagree.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    24. Re:Low even for Slashdot by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should actually read my post. I clearly stated that I thought that both parties are clowns.

  14. The important stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did she donate to a Prop 8 organization?

    1. Re:The important stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, she supported propping up eight dudes and having female soldiers point at their junk.

    2. Re:The important stuff by jbolden · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      There are quite a few rumors / gossip she is gay or in a lesbian relationship herself. She couldn't break with Bush's anti-gay agenda but she advocated respect and has come out in favor of civil unions. So consider he mildly supportive of gay rights and not bad at all for a Republican.

    3. Re:The important stuff by Servaas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, she supported propping up eight dudes and having female soldiers point at their junk.

      I generally have to pay to have kinky shit like that done to me.

    4. Re:The important stuff by quax · · Score: 2

      You probably also don't die as a result.

    5. Re:The important stuff by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      There are quite a few rumors / gossip she is gay or in a lesbian relationship herself.

      So, she could be both gay and lesbian? I thought you can be only one of the above, unless you're implying that she's both male and female. And I thought it was only a phrase when people said that she got balls.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    6. Re:The important stuff by jbolden · · Score: 1

      gay = homosexual inclination
      lesbian relationship = currently engaged

      One is a question of status the other a question of actions.

  15. Re:Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yup. Any and all objections to her sitting on the board are purely because she's an eggplant. Boy howdy, you sure got us figured out. BRB, starching my hood.

  16. Would you rather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have Rice or Eich on your board?

    No brainer, really.

  17. USA and North Korea regimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing new here. Communist regimes from USA and North Korea always worked close together.
    We are going to see comrades from both allied states taking over important positions.

    Way to go US Republican Commies!

  18. Uh oh! by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently they never checked her stance on Gay marriage:

    “I don’t ever want anybody to be denied rights within our country. I happen to think marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s tradition, and I believe that that’s the right answer. But perhaps we will decide that there needs to be some way for people to express their desire to live together through civil union.”

    Condoleezza Rice — Dec. 20, 2010

    I guess websites will have to protest and such and then she'll resign after 2 weeks right?

    1. Re:Uh oh! by devent · · Score: 1

      Did she supported any bills that were discriminatory? If yes, then I would say that she deserves the same backslash as Mr. Eich. Of course, it's not to be to decide but from the homosexual community. From the short quote I can't decide, because same-sex marriage was never about the marriage itself but the recognition of the union from the government. Basically, I would agree with Rice on this particular quote.

      Lets see what the quote says:
      "I don’t ever want anybody to be denied rights within our country." - Great, I wish Mr. Eich would think the same way.
      " I happen to think marriage is between a man and a woman." - Her personal opinion, it's all O.k. with that.
      "That’s tradition, and I believe that that’s the right answer." - Her personal opinion, it's all O.k. with that.
      "But perhaps we will decide that there needs to be some way for people to express their desire to live together through civil union. ” - I agree fully. The government should stay out of marriages and just recognize a union between people. The problem with Mr. Eich was that he went beyond his personal opinion and actively tried to deny rights to his fellow citizens.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    2. Re:Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The level of cognitive dissonance on display here is astounding.

    3. Re:Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly, you only get called out for being anti-gay if you're a white man.

    4. Re:Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing about the date of that quote - the President *and* the Vice President also held those views.

      Will you have the same attitude if/when they are named to various boards? Or did the "evolved" position, which was political, remove that from their baggage?

    5. Re:Uh oh! by litehacksaur111 · · Score: 1

      You know anyone who is stupid enough to use cloud storage for securing data even after seeing the company hire someone who supported the patriot act, tsa, nsa, torture, etc is really not going to care about stance on gay marriage.

    6. Re:Uh oh! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I know I'll be modded down again but:

      Well, no, because that's not really a position of hate now is it? She's haggling over the meaning of the term "marriage" but ultimately is in favor of same sex couples to have the same rights that heterosexual couples have. She states it twice, "I donâ(TM)t ever want anybody to be denied rights within our country" and "perhaps we will decide that there needs to be some way for people to express their desire to live together through civil union" in the the four sentence position you quote. Yes, many gay activists would be upset that Rice seems unwilling to recognize the significance of the term "marriage" in this case, but most would at least understand she's not trying to deny them actual legal rights or rights of association.

      In addition, regarding the concerns with Eich: Eich didn't merely donate money to some generic pro-Prop 8 group, the Prop 8 group itself was broadcasting ads before and after Eich donated to them describing homosexuals and homosexual marriage as dangerous to Children.

      And Eich pointedly didn't back down from that position - that homosexuals are dangerous to children - when it became public knowledge he'd made those donations to fund ads saying just that despite claiming to have noted the pain it was causing to people around him.

      Regardless of your views on gay marriage, Eich co-funded some extremely nasty propaganda and handled the revelations that he did so extremely badly. As such, it was reasonable for us to question his judgement, honesty, respect, and management skills, and ask why he was supposedly a good person to trust with the role of CEO.

      Rice? Uh... well, judgement, honesty... you'll have to look elsewhere for a sign she's deficient in those areas, although to be honest, I don't think you'll have far to go Iraq.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Uh oh! by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      That's the Open Minded Liberals you're talking about, right?

      --
      -Styopa
    8. Re:Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean I won't be able to merge my gay Dropbox with another gay Dropbox anymore?

    9. Re:Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it's the rational and intelligent ones who realize that when it comes to actual legal intolerance, then that exceeds the limits of personal tolerance.

      Want to marry your choice of partners? Go for it.

      Don't want somebody else to marry their choice or partners? That tends to be leading to problems.

      Want to use force of law to prevent it? That IS a problem.

  19. Re:Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A conservative is incapable of understanding what racism means. Seriously. Ask them to define it and they get a convoluted bundle of CRAP.

    Only a conservative would fail to understand concerns about someone who pushed the Patriot Act to the hilt as NSA adviser is 'racist.'

    It's most liberals that don't know what racism is. They sceam "racism" if someone mentions islamic terrorists. They think it's great to hire someone just because they're a minority even if they're under qualified and ignore white males when they are qualified. They don't see Affirmative Action as inherently racist, even though it's based totally on race. And they certainly love to say and do racist things about black and latino/hispanic conservatives, but throw a complete fit if a conservative says anything remotely derogatory about a democrat minority. Just note all the, "You didn't vote for Obama? Then you're a racist!" hyperbole from the likes of Chris Matthews and crew.

    Racism is believing that your race is far superior in all or most respects to other races and, more to the point, that you and they should be treated accordingly. Or, in some cases, simply judging and hating one specific race. Racism is not merely having pride in your race, even if you're white.

  20. Hire Al Gore! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0, Troll

    He's certainly qualified.......he invented the internet.

    And he's a Democrat.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Hire Al Gore! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's already on Apples board! That's a full time job, yessiree

    2. Re:Hire Al Gore! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I thought his fulltime job was looking for Manbearpig

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  21. Re:Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really? National Security Advisor who supports wire tapping sitting on the board for a cloud based storage solution company. Could your post be code for stupid.

    Revolving door of business and government. Having her on board increases the probability that if the Republicans gain the Senate this year, or the Presidency in 2016, the government will "encourage" its subcontractors to use Dropbox, or adopt Dropbox itself. Even if they don't, Republican-sympathetic nation states (vs. Democratically-sympathetic nation sates) are more likely to be good targets for Dropbox's enterprise sales force.

  22. Re:Wiretapping? by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Funny

    White male tears are my favorite beverage. :)

  23. Well by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    She is sharp and well-connected but I hope that this does not undermine Dropbox. I know I never trusted Dropbox from the very beginning and this is giving me even more reason not to trust them. Does this mean that government has an in road to easier spying? Only time will tell ....

  24. Re:Wiretapping? by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

    The reason it was controversial is that she most likely knew about the NSA spying on all of us and told us nothing.

    So? Obama and his administration did too.

  25. Sum up... by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not that using Dropbox is now a bad idea because Rice is on the board.... It's that using any "Cloud Based Storage" is not a good idea. Savvy readers can probably already setup and host their own servers... Why do you want to risk your data to someone else who does it "for free"?

    1. Re:Sum up... by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Savvy readers can probably already setup and host their own servers...

      What would you suggest for readers who aren't savvy but want a way to effortlessly keep files synchronized between all of their devices?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    2. Re:Sum up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      become savvy

      Savvy?

    3. Re:Sum up... by YutakaFrog · · Score: 2

      For non-savvy users: I recommend Tresorit. I really like the interface, and they seem to have security as one of their primary focuses. Everything you store on Tresorit is encrypted before it leaves your computer / device.

      For more savvy users: SpiderOak. Its interface is ... more than a little bit convoluted. But it's got all the same security and encryption that I like about Tresorit, plus file versioning and a web interface.

    4. Re:Sum up... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Both of which use closed-source clients and infrastructure (with a couple of open components), so you're really only basing your security assessment on their word. Not what I'd consider savvy...

      Remember that Dropbox said similarly positive things about their security at one time.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  26. Re:Wiretapping? by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

    Racism is not merely having pride in your race, even if you're white.

    Yeah, that's not racist, just stupid. Why should you have pride in something that's not an accomplishment (except for the late Michael, I guess)? And, if you don't believe your skin tone to be superior in any way, how would pride even enter the equation? I take my initial comment back: having pride on your race, whatever it is, is both racist and stupid.

  27. Political B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The select committee approving this has always been bipartisan and Obama reinforced and expanded the snooping for a full term and a half until he got caught. He's still done little to curb the NSA so WHY are you spinning this into some partisan nonsense in opposition to Rice?

  28. Re:Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tears of black people delight me.

  29. No Thank You by Stolovaya · · Score: 0, Troll

    I canceled my Dropbox account, and I let them know why.

    1. Re:No Thank You by drainbramage · · Score: 0, Troll

      Was it because you are a silly twit, a racist, a misogynist, or a super combo narrow minded lemming?
      Ouch!
      You sure told them.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    2. Re:No Thank You by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

      Care to expand on those accusations? I let them know that I would not associate with the company while someone like Condoleezza Rice was on the board.

    3. Re:No Thank You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so you are a racist and sexist, and probably a homophobe.

  30. I wrote dropbox in about an hour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using WebDAV and PHP.... Anyone using dropbox is probably heading for the exits by now. This only confirms their suspicions.

  31. Re:Wiretapping? by backslashdot · · Score: 2

    Uh, her endorsement of torture. How about that, I won't do business with or respect anyone who supports torture.

  32. Chappelle said it nicely by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember the Race Draft skit on The Chappelle Show? The whites wanted to draft Colon Powell as 100% white but the blacks would only allow it if they also agreed to take Condaleeza Rice. She wasn't real popular back then either apparently.

    1. Re:Chappelle said it nicely by drainbramage · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Nothing more hated then a self made very successful minority.
      Demonstrating that the government doesn't have to give a minority special help and a free pass is strictly forbidden.
      When liberals stop owning and grooming minorities to keep them beholden to the master government is when we will see true freedom, not doublespeak.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    2. Re:Chappelle said it nicely by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      self-made through hiring quotas.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  33. Team mentality by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    I was trying to figure out why people would say that she's connected to the NSA. I was wondering if they'd say that about anyone who served in the White House (Al Gore is on Apple's board). I guess to people subscribing to a team mentality, any member of the republican leadership must be working to promote the NSA, and all the brave democrats are fighting against it.

    But in reality, it's pretty silly to think that she's going to advocate turning over all their data to the NSA just because she's on their board and has worked with the NSA in the past. It's also pretty silly to think the NSA hasn't already got that data without her help.

  34. Every time a republican gets hammered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone comes along and blames it on "the intolerant left". You can win any argument with that argument. No, it's because most of the time, republicans are bat shit insane.

  35. How many decades... by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 0

    How many decades is it going to be before the hyper-partisan Democrats are going to be able to admit that maybe, possibly, it just might be that some things that "aren't right" are not, after all, George Bush's fault?

    1. Re:How many decades... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right, George H. W. Bush did not do anything wrong. well at least not when he was president. now as for having and raising a little shit who fucked the country well that is another thing.

    2. Re:How many decades... by cusco · · Score: 1

      When we finally recover from the clusterfuck that he left us with.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:How many decades... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we should really wait till he gets out of office to start talking about recovering from it...

      --AC, so I am not hounded till my company is forced to fire me

    4. Re:How many decades... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Well, we should really wait till he gets out of office to start talking about recovering from it...

      --AC, so I am not hounded till my company is forced to fire me

      Non-AC, because it's worth it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  36. Let's continue the Balkinzation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Balkinization of the business world is a great trend. Keep it coming! Soon we'll have "Republican Party companies" and "Democrat party companies". You'll have to check out the politics of the local fast food franchise owner before eating there, never know you might be supporting an evil Republican who wants to throw Granny under the bus and put women back where they belong, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, or a nasty Democrat who wants to "share" all your money among the unproductive masses, steal your guns, close your church, and abort babies in the 3rd trimester. Personally, I'll just go in, eat a burger, and not ask such questions.

    Just as good a case for pro-lifers to boycott any company headed by someone who has donated to Planned Parenthood as the boycotts (or alleged boycotts) of Mozilla or DropBox. More tolerance and less indignation about peoples politics *if they don't impact their behavior in the business setting* seems like a good plan to me. I dislike the trend.

    I'm pro gay marriage, but stopped using Firefox yesterday at work. I was already using Chrome at home anyway, switched to it at work as well and already don't miss it. Perhaps I'm not consistent, and maybe he *really* resigned of his own free will, but Eich still felt thrown under the bus to me, and I'd not want to reward a company that caved so easily...

  37. Re:Wiretapping? by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A conservative is incapable of understanding what racism means. Seriously. Ask them to define it and they get a convoluted bundle of CRAP.

    Conservative: racism is discriminating based on race. For example, college admissions are racist if they use different requirements for different races.

    Liberal: racism is the absence of penalizing whites. For example, college admissions aren't racist as long as they penalizes whites; if they penalize Asians more than whites, that's still not racism, since whites are still penalized in some way.

    Both are simple: one seeks equality at the start of the process, the other equality at the end of the process, and both think the other hates equality, like almost everything else in the conservative/liberal divide.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  38. Political golden parachutes by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Are they not grand? Where do i sign up?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  39. WOW... So this is America in 2014 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How, so now we really are purging everybody who does not agree with us 100% on political issues. Who is next, are we going to go thru the voter records and dismiss anybody who ever voted Republican or Libertarian ??

  40. Re:Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I don't support him either. Retard.

  41. Re:Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only a libertarian would think this.

    and libertarians are the most conservative group in America.

  42. Re:Wiretapping? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    If he'd wanted to look stupid he'd have assumed that having someone associated with Bush II on the board was a necessary and sufficient condition for being able to snoop on people.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  43. Re:Wiretapping? by lgw · · Score: 2

    "Big-L Libertarians" are a bunch of crazies, from all over the left-right spectrum (thus the two axes model). But mainstream conservative though is very much aligned with "classic liberalism" now - empowering individual liberty - while the mainstream left seems to value doing things for the benefit of the collective, "collective rights" (fuck you Justice Breyer, and the like. So "small-L libertarians", sure.

    But that's just another way of saying "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  44. Oh god, not another. by Kuroji · · Score: 1

    BRB, deleting everything from my dropbox and discontinuing service.

  45. Re:Wiretapping? by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

    You're saying that no person in the executive branch from the last few administrations is worthy of serving as a board member of company?

  46. Was it worth 4,488 Americans dying? by turp182 · · Score: 2

    Was the Iraq war worth 36,710 dead and wounded US military personnel (4,488 dead)?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

    The father knew not to take out Saddam. The son, not so much. And it was a war initiated on completely false pretenses (sort of a False Flag event).
     

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re:Was it worth 4,488 Americans dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. Who gives a fuck as long as Muslim fucktards are killed? Islam needs to be cut down with bullets and blade and fire.

    2. Re:Was it worth 4,488 Americans dying? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      As a veteran, I say, yes it was worth it. I signed up freely to do whatever job my country demanded of me. Thankfully for me, that did not include dying. But anyone who joins the military without realizing it could cause their death is a fool.

      I also love the double standard in this argument. The US government is so morally wrong with the Iraq war, but the people who willingly join the US government's armed forces are saints and heroes who were cruelly used against their wishes. How do you logically explain that?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Was it worth 4,488 Americans dying? by Xest · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, some of us both think the US (and my government at the time, the UK) were completely wrong and that soldiers don't deserve the saint hood they're granted.

      My grandfather and his generation deserved the privileged view veterans of his generation were given because he was forced into a war fighting for his life and the very survival of his country as a Royal Marine Commando fighting against Nazi Germany, but the guys who sign up today? No, they're almost all doing it because they're fuck ups and failed at school, and it's the easy way out of bucking up, growing up and doing something useful like everyone else.

      I'd have respect for soldiers fighting in a war of survival, or conscripts who were forced into a war against their will, but volunteers for the military of a nation not under direct threat? Nope. I don't respect them anymore than I respect people going into any other profession.

      I understand in America brainwashing is more prevalent and some people genuinely do believe that patriotic duty bullshit, but certainly here it's nonsense, no one believes that, they always claim it to demand they be afforded otherwise undeserved respect, but they don't believe it. They do it because they left themselves no other career path through their own stupidity, or because they just want to dick around with tanks, guns, and planes. That's fine to be like that, or to want that, but don't pretend it's something you deserve respect for. Military populism as peddled by the likes of The Sun and Murdoch and co's other offerings are populist poison in society creating saints of people who are otherwise failures by their own hand.

      Out of interest though, how do you determine that the Iraq war was worth it? I personally can't see how anything positive came out of it, the region lost an important counter balance to Iran, and Iran gained an ally. More people died, the country is less stable, and it cost the US economy trillions of dollars of debt. What possible benefits arose from it? I just can't see a metric that made it worthwhile. At least with Afghanistan I can see there is some argument for increased stabilisation, and less brutal militancy, at least with Afghanistan I can respect that there is certainly some progress.

    4. Re:Was it worth 4,488 Americans dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit about the invaders' casualties? Was it worth the damage inflicted on the population?

    5. Re:Was it worth 4,488 Americans dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it cost US economy trillions of dollars of debt. What possible benefits arose from it?

      It cost the US taxpayers trillions of dollars. Most of those went to US contractors. And there we have the benefit (from the point of view of those contractors, and the congressmen they own).

  47. Re:Wiretapping? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

    I'd have an easier time believing in "equality of opportunity" again if economic power were more evenly distributed. Unless you're telling me a lower-class kid from the ghetto, a middle-class kid from the 'burbs, and an upper-class kid from whatever upper-class enclave you wish to name all have the same "equality of opportunity". From my vantage point, the first has opportunity of jail or long-term unemployment and welfare, the second lifelong debt and wage slavery (until about age 50, where they slide down into the lower-class), and the third gets the opportunity to have just about anything he or she wants. And the statistics about outcomes and class mobility seem to bear this out. The only way to win a rigged game is to change the game.

    --
    That is all.
  48. Re:Wiretapping? by JWW · · Score: 1

    There is the concept that the fact that she knows what the NSA did and how they operate would be a valuable thing for a company like Dropbox to know.

    Its like how a coach for one team leaves to go to another team, they bring with them the knowledge of the plays and schemes that their previous team employed.

  49. Something to consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was not part of their blood,
    It came to them very late,
    With long arrears to make good,
    When the White Man began to hate.

    They were not easily moved,
    They were icy -- willing to wait
    Till every count should be proved,
    Ere the White Man began to hate.

    Their voices were even and low.
    Their eyes were level and straight.
    There was neither sign nor show
    When the White Man began to hate.

    It was not preached to the crowd.
    It was not taught by the state.
    No man spoke it aloud
    When the White Man began to hate.

    It was not suddenly bred.
    It will not swiftly abate.
    Through the chilled years ahead,
    When Time shall count from the date
    That the White Man began to hate.

  50. Re:Wiretapping? by lgw · · Score: 1

    Sure, you have a point, but that's just semantics of "opportunity". Does the rich kid have the same as the poor, the smart kid the same as the stupid? But what's the goal: to have one system with the same rules for all, or to have an equitable outcome from the system?

    I fund this characterization amusing, because it's usually the right who says "better justice than fairness, better righteousness than justice".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  51. still better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Than anyone the GOP is offering in the next presidential go-around and Hiliary.

  52. Re:Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's rephrase that from the opposite viewpoint and see if we can be just as inaccurate!

    Liberal: racism is discriminating based on race. For example, college admissions are racist if they use different requirements for different races.

    Conservative: racism doesn't exist. You're just making things up so you can get a government handout. Now get back to the plantation.

  53. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Condoleezza Rice was the first (and only) female African-American US Secretary of State and the second African-American Secretary of State. What has slashdot got against successful black women?

    1. Re:What? by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      Their time spent in the service of the spiritually wicked sitting in high places mebbe......?

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  54. Re:Wiretapping? by cusco · · Score: 1

    Not any company that I am willing to support,with a few exceptions for people who quit in protest over the shenanigans they were witnessing.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  55. objecting to downmod by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    my comment above is **not trolling or flamebait**

    i think the decision was bad...I gave pithy analogies to other known controversial hirings

    my points are falsifiable & on topic

    seriously...i was downmodded for reasons other than trolling or flame!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  56. Re:Wiretapping? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Spiro Agnew?

  57. Re:Wiretapping? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Theoretically, but from some of the stuff that has come out from Nixon's time there seems to be a lot that never made it past the joint chiefs. If we look at when Carter was in power there was a CIA operation to do a ransom deal with Iran that was kept secret from the executive branch until Reagan was in place - pretty major stuff to come as a surprise.

  58. Re:Wiretapping? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I'm convinced that the only thing libertarians have in common is they like the sound of the word "liberty". There's some here that would like to being back King George, some that are Stalin style "useful idiots" for the Republicans and others that are outright anarchists.

  59. You've set up the parameters of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...by saying "aren't savvy" and "effortlessly". You've not mentioned any other factors so I presume they aren't important enough to mention. In other words don't bother solving problems that aren't terribly important to you.

    So then use a cloud storage provider. Dropbox, SkyDrive, Box, whatever.

    Just know that those other, unmentioned factors may come back to haunt you some day. Although if most people's behaviour can be applied to you (sorry, but I have to have something to go on), then you'll worry but not change your activities.

  60. Knowingly or unknowingly? by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    "I won't do business with or respect anyone who supports torture"

    Comedic post of the day!!!

    I would assume you've never bought gasoline or bought a "made in China" product or paid taxes then?

    Probably all your clothes were made by children in poor countries. Your computer and your cell phone are made by something just short of slave labor.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  61. Candi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During George W. occupancy of the 'White House" on occasion could be viewed prancing down the corridor of the second floor and singing, "Candi,
    My Candi A wild thing, My Dandi, Candi Candi Cum With Me, In the E-vening."

    Oh well. George W. is far below George H.W. as all who have knowledge knows !

    Ha ha

  62. Condi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's a war criminal who belongs in the dock at the Hague.

    I'm changing to mega.co.nz effective immediately

  63. Maybe she was a figurehead by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Considering how it's already come out that Wolfawitz parked his girlfriend in the State Department on a higher salary than Rice and not under Rice's orders, I wonder if we'll find out some day exactly how much if the State Department Rice was allowed to run.

    Maybe she was just a figurehead chosen for maximum PR - which is more of a comment on those who chose here and wasted her abilities than on herself. Unfortunately it could be twenty years before the documents telling the true story are released.

    Hillary on the other hand had her fingerprints all over many knives from the leaked cables. Manning has done the United State a patriotic duty by releasing the information that will prevent her from being trusted enough to become President.

    1. Re:Maybe she was a figurehead by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      If you are referring to Shaha Riza, that happened over at the World Bank, which is not part of the State Department or the US Government. Rice was not even involved.

      I also think it was also a complete hack political job taking Wolfowitz down. He is dating a girl, he then becomes her boss (with 2 or 3 layers of bureaucracy between them, so it is not like he is doing performance reports or salary decisions on her), but before he becomes the boss the girlfriend is moved from her job so there can no hint on impropriety. The whole thing smells rank.

    2. Re:Maybe she was a figurehead by dbIII · · Score: 1

      with 2 or 3 layers of bureaucracy between them, so it is not like he is doing performance reports or salary decisions on her

      So you would be happy to give a poor performance review to the girlfriend of your bosses boss when you know the guy acts like slightly tamed gangster? Come on now, I know you were not born yesterday and can clearly see that there is a conflict of interest.

      However my point is he shuffled her off the the State Department to try to make it look as if she got the job on merit - which backfired because she didn't actually do any work there but instead got paid far more than the person running the State Department. So it's an example of Rice getting screwed over and not being allowed to have full control of the State Department.

    3. Re:Maybe she was a figurehead by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      o.k. then - what would have been the right answer?

      Direct supervision is not an answer. Indirect supervision either by multiple layers of bureaucracy (what you were talking about) or by the board were both ruled out by the board.

      It is the rare case where conflicts of interest can be completely eliminated. I would argue that either of these methods would have been robust enough to minimize conflict. There are tons of cases where you have married couples working together, parent and child, etc. and organizations have come up with polices to handle and minimize the issue.

      I personally feel that shipping her over to the State Department was overkill, but obviously that is not your opinion. What does that leave us with? Fire her because her boyfriend got a job? That seems unfair to her. Maybe soften the blow with a fat severance package? But that would be open to abuse. Any better ideas?

    4. Re:Maybe she was a figurehead by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I personally feel that shipping her over to the State Department was overkill, but obviously that is not your opinion.

      I see it as an expensive attempt to cover up nepotism which demonstrates contempt for the State department and for the taxpayers funding it.
      We are drifting off topic here. I gave an example. See it as the example and let's not have a thought exercise of the best way to hide nepotism at the sort of level where a girlfriend is being paid more than the one of the leaders of a nation while the job she is doing does not normally come with anything remotely in that pay bracket.

      Fire her because her boyfriend got a job?

      Not the issue since you've got it in the wrong order. She was not being paid more than Rice before the relationship.

  64. We had plenty of foresight as well by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There were plenty of people warning about the outcome. Rumsfeld responded by shutting down one of the army training schools that produced a lot of them. It went to the textbook warning of how not to do it.

  65. The military is a wide range of tools by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There were portions of the US Army designed for the job and a training school to give them and others those skills. However Rumsfeld decided to make cutbacks and remove them from the "known knowns" and then pretend later that the expected outcome of not committing enough resources was unknown.

  66. Re:Wiretapping? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    Are you really so confused about the definition of terms that you somehow find advocating for a dictator to be the same as libertarian. Actually study something and learn and be educated before you do any more damage to society.

  67. Re:Wiretapping? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    So it is actually not liberals/progressives who support Affirmative Action? I ask because Affirmative Action means exactly having different standards for different races, as in lower test scores and GPA for those races but higher for that race. Most people read having different standards for different races as discriminating based on race but as the previous poster said... Liberals don't actually see discrimination as discrimination, they see it as "action".

  68. Re:Wiretapping? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    No, I'm describing people that are so confused that they call themselves libertarian and would like to see Koch become a benevolent King. There are a lot of people that apply that label to themselves no matter what their political views actually are. Is my point clear enough yet?
    I suggest a bit more effort at understanding what is written before rolling out the insults - "learn", "be educated", "damage to society" - how childish. It appears you have not yet graduated to "damage society" yet while I've being doing it for decades and even educated a new generation of engineers to "damage society" in the late 1990s.

  69. Letting the fox man the hen-house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    interesting.

  70. Re:Wiretapping? by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

    I doubt 99% of readers here know Spiro Agnew.

  71. Re:Wiretapping? by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

    ...and as long as the lower-class kid is the proper skin color, you still get to tret him like shit, because you are shit.

  72. No status change for me by treczoks · · Score: 1

    Dropbox as an American cloud provider never was an option at all. Providers in the USA are by default untrustworthy. Sorry, not your fault, ask your gouvernment why they wreck trust with a sledgehammer.

  73. Re:Wiretapping? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    When in reality, nobody is wanting to see any of the Koch family become any kind of King so a bit of education would be in order.

    If you want a modern-day example of someone desiring to be a King, look no further than someone who has obtained an office and has publicly stated that he intends to make law by executive order if Congress will not make the laws he wants. That is much closer to being King than spending money, which, by the way, plenty of liberal/progressives do as well: Soros and Bloomberg are the two most well-known.

  74. Re:Wiretapping? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    If you can't see the types that desire an authoritarian government then you were born yesterday. As a clue they normally call it "strong", and then with a few questions and a bit of digging you find out it's full on pre-Magna Carta style monarchy they are asking for.

  75. Re:Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BS. Racism is prejudice plus power. In America, Black people don't have significant power. Yeah, yeah, Obama was elected, that's why Black people are penalized more for the same crimes than White people, way more likely to get the death penalty, get shot and abused by police, get paid less, get offered worse loans, and consistently have fewer opportunities. Sure, a Black person can be prejudiced towards you, but that is not the institutional racism that people are fighting against.

    White people have had so many advantages for so long that try to take them away is seen as a "penalty." That's privilege.

    Real racism gets black people killed, fake "racism" against white people hurts your little fee-fees. Notice the difference?

    You and whomever voted this drek "insightful" need to educate yourselves (isn't that the "personal accountability" conservatives want so much?)

  76. Re:Wiretapping? by operagost · · Score: 1

    All law enforcement supports wiretapping. What's in question is how strongly she supports warrantless wiretapping, and how that sits in the current climate. Is anyone keeping watch on past Obama administration officials-- the administration that also supports warrantless wiretaps-- to see where they are employed?

    Your insulting comment is code for "foe".

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  77. Look it up. It is a good example. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I suggest you google that name to get the story. She was parked in the State Department for some time, but Rice was not allowed to do anything other than pay her very high salary. That's a good example of a lack of control and in fact utter contempt of her leadership IMHO. It makes me think that Rice was not really allowed to be properly in charge of the State Department when people like Wolfowitz could do that to her department.

    Put yourself in that position - how would you feel about having to pay for an extra employee (who earns more than you) out of your budget but you are not allowed to issue them with tasks? Wouldn't you see it as a situation where you are being treated with contempt?

  78. Re:Wiretapping? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    Oh, like Obama wanting a stronger federal government that regulates nearly aspect of my life, doesn't allow the use of public lands for what they were originally intended for.

    Okay, glad we are on the same page except I didn't realize the Koch brothers were such strong backers of Obama. I guess I'll have to dig way deeper. Thanks for the insight there.

  79. Re:Wiretapping? by lgw · · Score: 1

    WTF? Are you even responding to the right post?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  80. Re:Wiretapping? by lgw · · Score: 1

    The mainstream media (always reliable) informs me that the Koch brothers are the root of all evil. Thus we can reason that any act of Obama (who the MSM assure me is flawless) which looks evil is really the fault of the Koch brother. Also Bush. QED.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  81. Re:Wiretapping? by lgw · · Score: 1

    BS. Racism is prejudice plus power

    Is that what the left believes today? Well, it's functionally interchangeable with my definition, I think.

    But if you wake up and look around the world, you'll see quite a different picture of who is killing whom. Most murder is same-race, because we mostly kill people we know socially. Most genocide is still religion-based, sadly enough, and very little is racial.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  82. Re:Wiretapping? by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

    Actually, I think I short-read your thread. The ending sounded rather stereotypical without the upper context. Apologies.

  83. torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A woman who had a role to play in torturing human beings is on the board of a product I enjoy using. I wish I lived in a world where someone like her would be avoided due to the harm she inflicted not just on this country, but on the fight for human rights. How I wish the people who advocate for torture would be the ones having to face it if they get captured. All of a sudden we'd see them go on at great length about the virtues of human rights.

  84. storj.io by acmacl · · Score: 1

    Hey, let's appoint someone who supports warrantless wiretaps to help run a data storage company! This seems like an appropriate time to plug storj.io, a blockchain-based decentralized cloud storage option that is under development and has received over $250k of private funding.

  85. Answer a question Zontar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How'd "eating your words" taste + your foot in your mouth & washed down w/ "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" too? Here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    * :)

    (Ahem: Zontar - Libeling me's OR me via attempting to LIE about apps I wrote above's one thing, however also being caught in it & being uanble to backup your OTHER lies too -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ) - Take your meds for THAT one: You're HALLUCINATING again, Zontar!

    Please...

    APK

    P.S.=> Now, you just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, now don't you? Ah, but of COURSE you do:

    THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & it always is, especially vs. LYING libelous done ZERO losers & admitted loonybirds like Zontar ( multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

    ... apk

  86. Answer a question Zontar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How'd "eating your words" taste + your foot in your mouth & washed down w/ "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" too? Here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    * :)

    (Ahem: Zontar - Libeling me's OR me via attempting to LIE about apps I wrote above's one thing, however also being caught in it & being uanble to backup your OTHER lies too -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ) - Take your meds for THAT one: You're HALLUCINATING again, Zontar!

    Please...

    APK

    P.S.=> Now, you just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, now don't you? Ah, but of COURSE you do:

    THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & it always is, especially vs. LYING libelous done ZERO losers & admitted loonybirds like Zontar ( multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

    ... apk

  87. Condy's words still fuel conspiracy theories by kbahey · · Score: 1

    Back in 2008 when Israel attacked Israel because of foolish Hezbollah misadventures, Condoleezza famously said:

    What we're seeing here is, in a sense, the growingâ"the birth pangs of a new Middle East, and whatever we do, we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old Middle East.

    Here is the source.

    To this day, the words "New Middle East" is believed by a vast majority over there as a USA conspiracy against Arabs/Muslims. When the 2011 revolution broke out, the first explanation by many was : "It is the USA conspiring against Mubarak, Egypt, Arabs, ...etc."

    Now both sides of the political divide in Egypt (pro-Military, pro-Muslim-Brotherhood) point to the other party as an accomplice or agent for that conspiracy.

    It is so powerful and pervasive .. no thanks to that ideologue of a Condy ...

  88. How far can you miss the point? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    No need to pretend to be utterly stupid in an attempt to be sarcastic - I'm merely pointing out that some people who like to self-apply the word "libertarian" have politics that diverges wildly from what you think the word means. I've done that by pointing out one of the strangest and contradictory extremes. Take a look back to the days when Koch was running for office and there really was the weirdness of effectively going for a new feudalism with Koch as King - "strong" leaders sorting things out and none of that Supreme Court trash - off with their heads!

    1. Re:How far can you miss the point? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      I know exactly what the word means. You, however, don't seem to as you consistently point out things that libertarians want that libertarians don't want, such as authoritarian government. You claim that some libertarians wanted one but what they are asking for is less government and when I point out that the liberal darling is pushing for an expanded, more authoritarian government, you call me stupid. Is it because you are so blind that you don't see it or is it simply because Obama wants the same authoritarian government you want that you are willing to claim it isn't authoritarian?

  89. Zontar - sockpuppeteering ilbeler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.

    Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!

    ---

    You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...

    ---

    Why, Lastly?

    You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):

    "The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!

    (Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)

    ... apk

  90. Zontar = libeler & sockpuppeteer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.

    Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!

    ---

    You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...

    ---

    Why, Lastly?

    You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):

    "The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!

    (Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)

    ... apk