Adding Condoleezza Rice To Dropbox's Board Seems Incredibly Tone Deaf Following NSA Concerns
from the it's-a-competitve-market dept
Dropbox is probably the most well-known of the cloud storage providers out there, and it's angling for an IPO. As such, it recently made some changes in its management, including a bit of news that is getting a fair bit of attention: adding Condoleezza Rice to its board. Rice's consulting firm has apparently been advising the company for the past year, and the announcement says that the former Secretary of State will help Dropbox navigate "international expansion and privacy" issues. While she's certainly qualified to help with international issues, it's the privacy issues that are raising significant concern among many.“As a country, we are having a great national conversation and debate about exactly how to manage privacy concerns,” Rice says about her new position. “I look forward to helping Dropbox navigate it.”Except, of course, a big part of that "great national conversation" are revelations that involve warrantless spying -- and Rice was a big part of enabling that warrantless spying. When she was Secretary of State, she defended the warrantless wiretapping program by saying:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's actions, telling "Fox News Sunday" the president had authorized the National Security Agency "to collect information on a limited number of people with connections to al Qaeda."Except, as we've learned from various leaks since then, the definitions that were used of "limited" and "connections to al Qaeda" in the sentence above are not the same definitions most English speakers would use. The program was not very limited and the necessary connections were barely present. Besides, to this day, no one has given a reasonable explanation for why a warrant shouldn't be used in such situations anyway. If there really are a limited number of people they want info on who have connections to al Qaeda, getting a warrant should be easy enough.
Furthermore, Rice also authorized the NSA to spy on the UN Security Council to find out what they were thinking about the US going to war in Iraq back in 2003.
President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.As for Dropbox, there have certainly been quite a few concerns about how private your data is on the site. When the first slides about PRISM came out, it was noted that Dropbox was about to become a part of the program. And while the fears about PRISM are greatly overstated, Dropbox has been fighting against public perception over this for some time. Dropbox's CEO, Drew Houston, spoke out against the NSA's efforts at the State of the Net conference back in January, and the company recently changed its privacy policies to address concerns about NSA spying. The company has also taken a strong stand saying that it will protect users' data against blanket government requests and backdoors.
Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call for comment.
Those were all good moves, that should have calmed many people's fears -- but to then appoint Rice to the board, and have her handling "privacy" issues basically blasts a major hole in that. I'm less inclined than some to simply assume this means bad things for Dropbox's privacy efforts in general. But from a public perception standpoint, this move does come across as exceptionally tone deaf by Dropbox. People are already raising concerns, and a basic Twitter search shows a bunch of people both raising concerns and looking for alternatives to Dropbox. And, of course, someone has already set up an entire website about why people should drop Dropbox over this move.
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: condoleeza rice, international expansion, ipo, nsa, privacy, surveillance, warrantless wiretaps
Companies: dropbox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This news locked it up for me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This news locked it up for me
Hint, if a Raspberry Pi does not suffice as the server, you need cloud services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This news locked it up for me
That's an odd metric. Why is Raspberry Pi the threshold?
I would argue that you almost never need (and should strenuously avoid) third party cloud services. The primary exception is, as you state, if you're distributing something to a lot of people.
If you want the convenience of cloud, it's pretty trivial to run your own cloud server nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This news locked it up for me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This news locked it up for me
But yeah, i'm a power user, the other options I posted in another post are good alternatives to casual things like dropbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This news locked it up for me
Time to finish setting up the OwnCloud here...
I also use other cloud storage services, which I'll be temporarily moving the dropbox stuff to until I can finish up.
Also, a friend pointed me to this link:
http://www.drop-dropbox.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Press Release: James Clapper announced as new Board Chairman of Dropbox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My first thought
My second thought was... "gee, I wonder if the MAFIAA will be as quick to sue Dropbox now that she's on the board."
Maybe the ultimate motive isn't the obvious one...lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She may be a bad idea on the Board for a lot of reasons, but for doing her job in the Bush Administration? I don't think that really tells us much about how she will advise on privacy issues as a board member. That said, she is basically a statist, so I'd expect the status quo. Dropbox would be the company to make a stand for user privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She may be a bad idea on the Board for a lot of reasons, but for doing her job in the Bush Administration? I don't think that really tells us much about how she will advise on privacy issues as a board member. That said, she is basically a statist, so I'd expect the status quo. Dropbox would be the company to make a stand for user privacy.
I tried to be clear in the post that my issue is less with what her actual opinions are or for what she'll actually do, but for the public perception aspect of it, given the widespread existing concerns about Dropbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Politicians doing just that are why states become totalitarian, they are giving in to the bully in charge. It is what people who prefer power over people, rather than representing them and standing up for the their rights do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
while working in the gummint, she had a DUTY ABOVE ALL ELSE: to obey and honor the constitution, she did not...
it is not arguable, it is TRUE, that virtually EVERY administration has shat on the constitution for their own convenience; but the kongresskritters and (in)justice department have rolled over on ALL THAT SHIT, such that we HAVE NO 'CHECKS AND BALANCES' any longer, only one like-minded korporate-centric entity which ignores the constitution/law whenever it wishes, and makes up shit the rest of the time...
but, i'm sure big daddy will look after you, just do WHATEVER he says; don't make big daddy mad ! ! !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, just following orders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Chris ODonnell on Apr 10th, 2014 @ 11:15am
You sound like an NSA apologist shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think anybody has forgotten this at all. That's one of the big problems I have with her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: befehl is behfehl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either she was a part of that decision, or she was happy to go and defend the indefensible just because someone told her she had to as part of her job.
Sorry, not a great deal of difference in my mind. That defence didn't work in Nuremberg and it doesn't hold here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Nuremberg Defense holds no water for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF there were any justice in this world...
she is slime...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just read the headline to a co-worker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just read the headline to a co-worker
Yep, so there: I unlinked a bunch of apps and pulled Dropbox off my various devices… With the full understanding that, if I expect to drop every service that hires a somehow unsavory character, I’ll soon not be using the web. Or communicating via known civilized paths in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I just read the headline to a co-worker
Not only does this avoid dealing with a great many unsavory people and operations, but it has enormous security and privacy value: I can't be attacked from any Bolivian network, for example, because they can't even reach me. Same for Facebook -- they're in the firewall too. Bidirectionally, of course.
So let's not lament the loss of an operation or two: most of them are new anyway, few of them will last, they're transient and unimportant. Like Dropbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think you know what that means. Nor is it applicable here. As noted in the article pretty clearly (did you read it?) the concern is about how this appears. And the fact that so many people are angry about it appears to justify that concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess that would explain why people still don't seem to care about being invisibly surveilled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, and it will be for as long as we are human.
I was already recommending against dropbox, but choosing her to be on the board elevates them in my mind from a passive go-along-with-the-status-quo kind of company to an active we-don't-care-about-our-users kind of company. One is bad, the other is worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same shit different asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: crazywater on Apr 10th, 2014 @ 11:35am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Blatent violation of the 4th amendment and an affront to the human right to privacy or "leftist witch hunt"...? Yes, surely the latter. Only fucking reds and shitlibs could suggest the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The day we stop the "You must be a liberal socialist!" nonsense, they will fear us. Can we stop it now, please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I assume therefore that in your dictionary, "leftist" = "someone capable of understanding and addressing reality"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dropbox is only used by the naive and stupid
For example:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/04/08/1838220/Dropbox-Authentication-Insecure-By-Design
and
ht tp://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Apr-19.html
and
http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2011/04/how-dropbox-sac rifices-user-privacy-for.html
and
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/21/dropboxs-new-securit.html
and
htt p://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/26/dropbox-asks-file-sh.html
and
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110 425/15541514030/dropbox-tries-to-kill-off-open-source-project-with-dmca-takedown.shtml
and
http://hard ware.slashdot.org/story/11/05/15/2157202/Dropbox-Accused-of-Lying-About-Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dropbox is only used by the naive and stupid
My private data never goes on a server. Not as convenient, but much more secure.
Am I naive or stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dropbox is only used by the naive and stupid
Neither. You've thought seriously about the risks and benefits and have made an intelligent decision about what works best for you. I applaud you, sir.
What people shouldn't do is use cloud services without thought, as if they were just an extension of their private machines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful of the precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful of the precedent
You have to wonder, if Dropbox were adding Hillary to the board, would we be getting stories denouncing the choice, or would there be stories about how influential she would be and how nice it is to see a prominent woman named to the board of a tech company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful of the precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Careful of the precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful of the precedent
That pariah status you're complaining about is 100% deserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful of the precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful of the precedent
Why would you think we wouldn't?
Although I would refine this somewhat. I'll make the same protest against anyone in the Obama administration who had anything to do with, or spoke in support or defense of, the policies and actions of the Obama administration that I believe are egregious. That's not the entirety of the administration. It's also the exact standard I use about the Bush administration and every administration that came before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful of the precedent
No. I didn't say that. I said that it's a bad PR move, and I don't understand why Dropbox would do it.
because she supported warrentless surveillance, so you will make the same argument and protest against anyone from the Obama administration when they try to get on boards of tech companies
Yes, easily. If they were integral to promoting the surveillance state (or bad IP law, or other issues of concern to me).
I am sick of people claiming that they are upset about an issue when they are really just upset that the person was on the wrong team.
I'm curious as to which "team" you think I support? We have never supported any particular team at all. We have regularly called out people on both "teams" when they do something stupid, just as we've celebrated those on both "teams" when they've done good things.
I'm not on any team and this site has never supported any of the major political parties. In fact, we specifically do not name what party anyone is a part of (unless it's central to the story) because doing so immediately leads to idiots making it into a partisan thing.
So, seriously: which team am I on? If you'd like I'm happy to show you where we've criticized both Democrats and Republicans as well as celebrated both Democrats and Republicans.
This has nothing to do with teams.
I was involved in several groups that supported Net neutrality and when Obama was elected the groups disbanded. We still don't have net neutrality.
Out of curiosity, could you point out what net neutrality groups have disbanded? I'd love to hear about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful of the precedent
...and I'm sick of morons attacking what they assume are the opinions of others rather than learning their actual positions. But those strawmen are just so much easier to attack than reality, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful of the precedent
Oh and yes we do, we always have. Neutrality is what people are trying to remove and we have to defend, not something we have to build.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rice
Now what's really baffling is how SUSAN Rice was appointed National Security Advisor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it that so many disgraced government officials keep popping up over and over in places where they are unqualified and/or unwelcome? At least Ukraine was on the right track, not afraid to throw that country's criminal leaders in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right vs Left has nothing to do with it
Really, do you guys saying this is brought up by the left not remember Bush? Do the people saying it was because of Bush not pay attention now? The democrats and republicans are the same in this. Neither values the constitution so stop helping them misdirect people by bringing up arguments about "right vs left" please. This is about what America is supposed to stand for and how all of the asshats are running it these days from "both sides of the aisle".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right vs Left has nothing to do with it
But on all the really important issues (like trillion-dollar bank bailouts or feeding the security/military-industrial complex) they act as one unified party - regardless of what they might claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right vs Left has nothing to do with it
It's rather pathetic, and a little scary to see so many immature fools with voting rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Right vs Left has nothing to do with it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
overstated fears
The way I've been seeing it, every time we think that a certain NSA and/or PRISM fear is 'overstated,' we find out that we had what we feared was actually happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: overstated fears
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have never felt "right" about using DropBox and this was the last straw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look al Qaeda uses email, the internet, and cell phones. Gasp! So do Americans!
...connection established...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple's dubios board.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
President Clinton clearly explained in his order, "Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the (FISA) Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information ... ."
Justice Department memos released on April 28, 2004, and written up in the next day’s Washington Times: "Newly released Justice Department memos show that Sept. 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism.
"As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995."
Gorelick’s efforts to hamper communications -- constructing "the wall" between intelligence and law enforcement -- are blamed by some for the U.S. failure to spot the 9-11 plot before it happened. The USA Patriot Act tore down these restrictions -- yet even the ultra-restrictive Gorelick recognized Presidential authority to conduct warrantless "searches for foreign intelligence purposes".
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/29/20040429-122228-6538r/
Left wing hypocrisy is overwhelming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple's dubios board.
For my part, it was hard to get all up in arms about Gore being on the Apple board because I already considered Apple to be an awful, immoral, highly objectionable company. There's no room for downward motion there.
I did not have such an estimation of Dropbox. I considered them sketchy, but nowhere near Apple's level of malevolence. So there's a lot of room for downward motion there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple's dubios board.
He joined in 2003. Maybe there's a story if you search the archives.
"Left wing hypocrisy is overwhelming"
Politics is not a team sport. Stop being a child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple's dubios board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copy.com
Wuala is great too, from switzerland and end to end encrypted, but the free plan is 5gb only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What we don't want is the govt. framing political targets ala MLK and Hoover or ruining people or companies for politcal or economic reasons they can vaguely relate to 'national security'... favoring one company by stealing another company's IP, ruining a competitor of a favored company.. generally interfering with civil society...they DO have an legit interest in defending against terrorism in this country and a first line of defense are the commercial providers of services who , yes, will give you up if you mean harm. What did you want them to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's easy. But it doesn't solve the problem.
"What did you want them to do?"
Respect our rights. If they can't do that and "defend the nation" at the same time, then stop trying to "defend the nation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If only.
With how convoluted the legal systems are(pick a country, they're all guilty of this), and how many laws there are on the books, not doing anything obviously illegal might seem fairly easy, but not doing anything illegal? All but impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geeks suck
Hey, morons, she's not working for the government anymore. You know how a company might turn to an ex-hacker or ex-thief to consult on security?
The NSA doesn't care about you or your furry hentai fetish. This "crisis" is the funniest thing to ever happen. A sea of filthy geeks cowering in their basements thinkng Big Brother is after them. Meanwhile no one gives a particle of rat shit about any of them or their massive personality disorders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geeks suck
You actually had one reasonable point to make:
"You know how a company might turn to an ex-hacker or ex-thief to consult on security?"
That's worth of discussion. But, you decided to wrap it in text that makes it look like a 9 year old football player wanted to get over the inferiority complex he gets every time he steps into a classroom.
Don't worry, once you get over puberty you'll learn how to communicate with adults and the nerds won't make you feel so impotent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geeks suck
And I'm thankful for that. But it's not relevant to the problem. The problem is that she has demonstrated that she is in favor of spying, wiretaps without a warrant, etc., and she has been placed on the board of a company for whom these issues are very relevant.
If she had been placed on the board of, say Exxon, nobody would have cared.
"You know how a company might turn to an ex-hacker or ex-thief to consult on security?"
Yes, but how many times do these companies put such people into positions of power, such as sitting on the board?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adding bush virus to drop box system
this also could be a pre-planned outcome, meaning bush cronies want to secretly infiltrate cloud computing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]