After the outrage generated by Brendan Eich's $1000 donation to prop 8, I would hope Dropbox associating with one of the people behind the Iraq war draws a similar response. If anyone's deserving of ostracization, it's war criminals who are effectively above the law.
She was Secretary of State not Secretary of Defense. I would hope this whole Eich fiasco doesn't start a conservative witch hunt in SV. Not that the Eich thing was really a conservative/liberal issue, but people may try to turn it into that.
Heh, may as well get all the facts straight here. She was National Security Advisor in the lead up to, and first two years of Iraq. The Secretary of State at that time was Colin Powell. She became Secretary of State in 2005.
Furthermore, being Secretary of State would not absolve her from any responsibility that people believe she may have. Secretary of State is incredibly important to any major conflict, probably right after Secretary of Defense. You may recall that Colin Powell worked quite hard trying to sell the Iraqi War abroad.
'Witch hunt' normally refers to hounding someone for minor or imagined offenses.
Condoleezza Rice actively participated in launching a war of aggression, an offense which was deemed worthy of the death penalty at the Nuremberg trials. I think ostracizing her and any company which does business with her is entirely fair and reasonable.
Depending on who you ask every war is a war of aggression. I find this whole concept of "war crimes" silly. Like there's legal and good way to go about killing people and a bad and illegal way to go about killing people.
Wow, what a wishy-washy response that escapes all responsibility. Just because something is sometimes hard to decide doesn’t mean you have to throw it out of the window to make it all more comfortable for you. You are a coward.
I agree with you - this is like 100x worse than making Eich CEO - but doubt anything will come of this. The Eich thing was somewhat of a surprise, but no surprises here. If them backing off this decision was possible they wouldn't have gone with her in the first place.
The distinction (to me) would be - did they support it because they were told by people they trust (ie us.gov) that it was valid? I can halfway excuse them for this.
Or did they support it with first-hand knowledge that it wasn't valid (ie us.gov)? This I cannot excuse them for.
Glad I'm not the only one that saw this parallel. I can kind of see a case for them being different (community aspect of Mozilla, and quibbling over how responsible she is), but the offense at this ought to fall along similar "party lines", so I'm not sure why anyone would choose to play a double standard. It will be interesting to see if the same people get upset, if anyone really does.
> Dropbox needs people with international experience to help it at once deal with foreign governments that have blocked its use — China, for example — and as it works to spread a product developed in one country to others that are culturally different.
That seems like a pretty weak reason for hiring her on it's own. Would make more sense to hire her on the grounds of having some clout in Washington so your file sharing service doesn't end up doing a "Megaupload"
The techcrunch article suggests that she was picked for her international experience. It seems to me that if they wanted someone to help make things go smoothly abroad, they could've picked a somewhat less controversial and polarizing figure.
On another note, given her former role in government as national security advisor, this might raise eyebrows regarding domestic spying and how that affects any privacy that Dropbox claims to provide.
Then again, I have no doubt that they already considered these things, and chose her anyway. So maybe she is the right person for the job.
Wow... so... it looks like I won't be doing business with Dropbox.
... I imagine they want an "in" with defense/govt contracts and who better than someone who knows how to get government money spent.
Regardless, if you feel or have felt your data was safe from prying eyes on dropbox-- after this I'd go somewhere else before that no longer holds true...
I imagine a conversation like, "oh yeah, we'll use Dropbox, we've got $150 million no bid contract ready... but we're going to need something hooked up at your data center. For reasons of national security we cannot tell you what it is or what it's doing..."
... though I suppose in general, if you thought data was safe in the cloud you're already lost.
My point is that her tenure in the executive branch extended beyond her involvement in the Iraq War. As SoS, she was also involved in Africa policy, led a push for proactive diplomacy, etc.
In addition, the comments about hiring Rice to secure government contracts is absurd in the opposite direction.
I'm not sure I consider this a positive for Dropbox.
Nor am I sure why they would do this other than they like to suck up famous people... Guido Van Rossum for instance.
Surely there are less controversial figures that have an intimate knowledge of international relations and less associated baggage. They probably come at a better price too.
How can anyone in 2014 seriously not think that's a slightly suspicious vibe? Regardless of whether you think these people are war criminals or not, or what their role was within in former administrations. It is clear she is connected to things at the highest level.
If you are a person who still trusts these power players; I would sincerely love to know why...
25 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 69.8 ms ] threadFurthermore, being Secretary of State would not absolve her from any responsibility that people believe she may have. Secretary of State is incredibly important to any major conflict, probably right after Secretary of Defense. You may recall that Colin Powell worked quite hard trying to sell the Iraqi War abroad.
That said, I don't want a witch hunt either.
Condoleezza Rice actively participated in launching a war of aggression, an offense which was deemed worthy of the death penalty at the Nuremberg trials. I think ostracizing her and any company which does business with her is entirely fair and reasonable.
That sort of language is definitely not constructive, and probably explains your downvotes.
Or did they support it with first-hand knowledge that it wasn't valid (ie us.gov)? This I cannot excuse them for.
That seems like a pretty weak reason for hiring her on it's own. Would make more sense to hire her on the grounds of having some clout in Washington so your file sharing service doesn't end up doing a "Megaupload"
On another note, given her former role in government as national security advisor, this might raise eyebrows regarding domestic spying and how that affects any privacy that Dropbox claims to provide.
Then again, I have no doubt that they already considered these things, and chose her anyway. So maybe she is the right person for the job.
... I imagine they want an "in" with defense/govt contracts and who better than someone who knows how to get government money spent.
Regardless, if you feel or have felt your data was safe from prying eyes on dropbox-- after this I'd go somewhere else before that no longer holds true...
I imagine a conversation like, "oh yeah, we'll use Dropbox, we've got $150 million no bid contract ready... but we're going to need something hooked up at your data center. For reasons of national security we cannot tell you what it is or what it's doing..."
... though I suppose in general, if you thought data was safe in the cloud you're already lost.
In addition, the comments about hiring Rice to secure government contracts is absurd in the opposite direction.
Nor am I sure why they would do this other than they like to suck up famous people... Guido Van Rossum for instance.
Surely there are less controversial figures that have an intimate knowledge of international relations and less associated baggage. They probably come at a better price too.
If you are a person who still trusts these power players; I would sincerely love to know why...