Slashdot Mirror
Commenters To Dropbox CEO: Houston, We Have a Problem
theodp (442580) writes "On Friday, Dropbox CEO Drew Houston sought to quell the uproar over the appointment of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the company's board of directors, promising in a blog post that Rice's appointment won't change its stance on privacy. More interesting than Houston's brief blog post on the method-behind-its-Condi-madness (which Dave Winer perhaps better explained a day earlier) is the firestorm in the ever-growing hundreds of comments that follow. So will Dropbox be swayed by the anti-Condi crowd ("If you do not eliminate Rice from your board you lose my business") or stand its ground, heartened by pro-Condi comments ("Good on ya, DB. You have my continued business and even greater admiration")? One imagines that Bush White House experience has left Condi pretty thick-skinned, and IPO riches are presumably on the horizon, but is falling on her "resignation sword" — a la Brendan Eich — out of the question for Condi?"
If you can't spell "you're", you're an idiot. An illiterate idiot....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Same intolerant crap.
There are some things that shouldn't be tolerated. War mongering is one of them. Thousands of American families lost a son, brother, or husband in a pointless counter-productive war because of this woman's lies and incompetence. The number of Iraqi families affected is a hundred times higher.
Dropbox has the right to have her on their board. I have the right to speak my mind, and take my business elsewhere.
The real question is, "what does she bring to the table" as a member of the Board? Does her tenure as a faculty member in the Stanford School of Business matter? What about her time as the director of the Stanford Global Center for Business and the Economy?
The bills from the Obama administration will dwarf the minor fraction of debt that was from the Iraq war.
Discretionary spending under Obama has grown at the slowest rate for any president since Eisenhower. Admittedly, the sequester has played a big role in this. The annual deficit Obama largely inherited from Bush has been cut in half. Go ahead and live your delusion. Some of us, including the parent poster HAVE moved on. Will you?
This goes beyond that.
Rice directly contributed to the waste of O($1 trillion) of taxpayer money, the loss of thousands of lives, and the torture of prisoners. That should make her persona non grata to any organization that gives a damn about not wasting public money for political gain, not murdering people, and not engaging in state violation of human rights. This isn't "gave some money to a dishonest and illiberal election campaign" (Eich). This is "shit on American values and wiped with the Constitution for good measure".
That's on top of the security/espionage concerns.
If Condi Rice were the checkout clerk at Safeway I'd refuse to do business with them.
Try SpiderOak. Free 2 GB, zero-knowledge, secure. Works on a load of OSs and devices. I'm a completely satisfied customer.
Or ... get a free dynamic DNS hostname (there are still plenty available) and take a few minutes to learn about SSH/SFTP (and SSHGuard if you are using passwords) and set up your own personal file server. It doesn't have to allow shell access.
Now the companies can do whatever they want because you did the little bit of learning it took not to care.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Well ganjadude. May I call you ganjadude? I imagine that is what your friends on 'your side' call you, right? 'ganjadude' sounds like that kind of a name.
You're assuming that the people who are angry about the appointment of Rice to this role are the same people who were angry about the Eich being given the CEO position at Mozilla.
You're also roughly stating that because there are other reasons to dislike Dropbox, it is inappropriate to complain about their choice of someone who has historically be pro-surveillance and supportive of state-sanctioned torture (in certain contexts, like the state doing the torturing for the US). I isn't really 'inappropriate' to complain about both the color and performance of a car, and likewise I don't think that disliking some other attribute of Dropbox reasonably precludes me complaining about their choice of board members.
I didn't much like the way that Eich was attacked for his support of Prop 8, even though I didn't agree with Prop 8. Eich's views on same-sex marriage really don't relate Mozilla (I don't think), and they don't really make him a bad or nasty person either - at least, not themselves without knowing the reasoning behind them.
That Rice previously demonstrated support of intensive surveillance by government does directly relate to Dropbox. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to criticise. I think that her support of torture and extraordinary rendition makes her an unpleasant person, but I'm not sure that so much relates to her role at Dropbox.
Your obsession with what 'they' do, those dirty liberals, is slightly bizarre and makes you sound like a crazy person. Also, you're presenting a weak caricature of liberals and then pretending it is reality. That doesn't make you sound clever, or steadfast in your role as an opponent of liberals. It makes you sound like someone who is to polarized to be able to think straight.
Trolling grammar nazis just makes you a different kind of idiot
The issue has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor the fact that she's a woman, or that she is Black. The real issue here is that in the wake of Snowdon's revelations about widespread surveillance of the general public by three letter government agencies, a former National Security Advisor is being appointed to the board of a widely used online storage site that has thus far managed to convince some people that it is on the side of privacy.
I find it very amusing how the tune has changed with regards to how vote with their wallet and corporate moral character.
For the longest time the argument was "Well if you don't like company x don't buy their products!". With the implication being that if you don't actually stop, then you are just a whiner or a hypocrite. But now people really are taking their business elsewhere. The actions of a company or the people that represent a company is effecting the bottom line. Yet somehow old "vote with your wallet" is no longer acceptable. Somehow judging a company based on it's moral character is an assault on free speech, maybe even down right persecution!
For a long time people (on Slashdot especially) have been warning of the dangers of putting your data in the cloud. Of the amount of personal information that can be gleaned from your web browsing habits. That that big business is cooperating with the government (willingly or not) in a massive breach of privacy. So how and can anyone be surprised that customers demand moral character from leadership of companies to whom we are handing over so much personal information?
If you had to make a choice between companies to store YOUR personal information and your choices are: Company A with Bruce Schneier on it's board of directors, and Company B with Dick Cheney on it's board of directors. Does anyone seriously think that difference shouldn't effect the decision?
I for one have no sympathy. Yes a company has every right to alienate their customers, but customers also have every right to vote with their wallets.
Just because the last three companies she was on the board of did not need to be sold out, it doesn't follow that she won't sell this one out. Remember, warrantless wiretapping began on her watch. As a former National Security Advisor, her ties to the intelligence community are strong.
I understand very clearly the difference between accumulated debt and rate of growth of debt (which is what the deficit is).
At the same time, you should understand that you can't "inherit" a deficit. The idea is poppycock. The budget for each year stands fresh on its own. You can change a massive deficit to a surplus in a single year just by adjusting the numbers in your budget. Yes, interest on the debt (which IS inherited), and a piss poor economic climate (which is inherited to some extent) are burdens on the budget, but it within the power of the budgeters to counteract these. I don't claim it would be an easy choice to do it, or to live with, but it is in point of fact utterly trivial procedurally to do.
A final point I'll throw in just to make the whole discussion even more fun. No President has any control over the budget beyond:
1) Submitting one, which can be mutilated or just replaced by the legislature.
2) Signing off on whatever budget DOES get passed by the legislature (if there is one).
3) Using the bully pulpit, which is not trivial, but still it's just talk and persuasion.
In passing, I call attention to the point that those responsible for making a budget can subvert the whole process by just failing to execute their duty. Both the President and Congress have been guilty of that.
One could argue that a President can take unilateral action, like engaging the military in action, which necessarily leads to hemmorhage in the budget, so yes, that has to be mitigated. However, the legislature can still use the war powers act to limit the effect by limiting the time scale - IF, and it is a big IF, they are willing to stick their neck out.
should her life be ruined over the fact that she made some mistakes while in government?
yes. when you 'make mistakes' at that kind of level and it affects the WHOLE WORLD in a hugely negative way, YES. 1000 times yes.
next question?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
>*that's sarcastic in case you can't tell, but hopefully it'll help point out that the left needs to lay off the racist card so hard*
No, it's actually the right that needs to lay off the "race card" card. Seriously, every time they bring up some pointless complaint about Obama, they whine defensively that they're only restrained from criticism because they'll be called racists.
No shit, when your complaint is that Obama's a Kenyan Marxo-Islamic Fascist Communist, that's going to happen.
Doesn't mean you can't find some legitimate complaint to make about Obama, but the conservative right can't even manage that most days of the week.
Dropbox starts scanning your files and prevents you from sharing what *it thinks* are copyrighted materials, and instead, you guys bitch and moan over some Hollywood-celeb-type bullshit?
Heh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
If killing people and attacking countries is enough for you to call for invasion and hanging, I assume you would be fine with the US being invaded and roughly a gazillion people being finally tried for their crimes?
And why stop with Saddam? There are so many way more brutal dictators around the world, so what gives? Are you unaware that the US govt actively supported worse than him, or are you just chosing to ignore it? Don't even pretend: his crime wasn't that he "invaded his neighboring country", but that he did so on his own accord, disobeying the US. That's what made him an enemy, not the gassing or being a dictator. And then there is the fact that the US was always keen on controlling the oil in that region... so either you play along or you get replaced, that is all; how brutal you are doesn't play into it other than that you get lauded for it while you follow orders, and demonized otherwise. Saddam was an asshole, but that doesn't make the US govt less of a war profiteering, hypocritical BS expedition, or you less of an useful idiot, who essentially gets to pay big money to have blood on your hands. Sorry, I know nobody wants to hear something like that, but step one to fix things is to stop pretending you're not being played like a piano.