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

There are two issues I see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements like:

"She helped start the Iraq War"

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

"Rice was on the Board of Directors at Chevron"

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How, exactly?

And if they get fired with cause, they most likely loose a lot of their acquisition payout, so it is in their best interest to follow the rules.

And once they were acquired, no different than any other Google employee. That is the cost of "selling out" as they say.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975459

Apple Computers won the litigation, but I'm not entirely sure why. The Beatles kept their albums off of iTunes for years because of it.

https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=21632

    var express = require('express'),
        path = require('path'),
        http = require('http'),
        https = require('https'),
        fs = require ('fs');
    
    var app = express();
    
    var options = {
      key: fs.readFileSync('cert/rsa.key'),
      cert: fs.readFileSync('cert/rsa.crt'),
      ca: fs.readFileSync('cert/sub.class1.server.ca.pem') // needed this
    };

    https.createServer(options, app).listen(443);