Goodbye Dropbox

[Gronk]

So I guess you all heard of Dropbox's.... questionable decision to put Condoleezza Rice on their board. Not only is she, by many, considered a war criminal, but she apparently has little respect for privacy and personal integrity. For me this is reason enough to cancel my account there and go to some other service.

How heck can a service who handles people's personal files make such a tone-deaf decison, not understanding how their users will take it?

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

 

[lacktheknack]

No.

Following this logic, people should have been fleeing the US in droves at the first sign of unethical behavior on the government's part. They didn't, so I can only assume that ethics are only worth upholding if it doesn't really bother you to do so.

Condoleezza Rice is no longer in office. She hasn't been for five years. She may have changed since then for all you know. Furthermore, the initiative is running on pure emotional drive (why else would they show photos of an injured child?). Plus, her actions in office aren't directly relevant to her role at Dropbox. If Condoleezza Rice does something untoward while on the panel, then I'd consider dropping the service, but blacklisting people from life for life just isn't something I support.

 

[Gronk]

Personally i disagree, the members of a company's board hint to the company's ethics. Having a board member with such an outspoken disregard for privacy shows that the company's talk of integrity are just empty words and PR dazzle.

And about blacklisting her for life: She was active in lying to motivate the invasion of Iraq. that is not a small... Shall we say misjudgement, to be nice.. That is an extreme one. That also hints of a very questionable ethic. So lack of respect for integrity and a history of lying. Not a good combination if your business is trust.

But ofcourse, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is mine.

 

[Silvanus]

No.

Following this logic, people should have been fleeing the US in droves at the first sign of unethical behavior on the government's part. They didn't, so I can only assume that ethics are only worth upholding if it doesn't really bother you to do so.

Well, not really, that behaviour wouldn't necessarily be consistent with the OP's choice at all. It's a relatively small and manageable change to stop using Dropbox; it's a colossal upheaval to leave a country.

It may be following a similar line of reasoning, but it's on a ludicrously different scale. There's no equivalence between the two acts.

 

[Jacco]

Personally i disagree, the members of a company's board hint to the company's ethics. Having a board member with such an outspoken disregard for privacy shows that the company's talk of integrity are just empty words and PR dazzle.

And about blacklisting her for life: She was active in lying to motivate the invasion of Iraq. that is not a small... Shall we say misjudgement, to be nice.. That is an extreme one. That also hints of a very questionable ethic. So lack of respect for integrity and a history of lying. Not a good combination if your business is trust.

But ofcourse, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is mine.

I thought we were past the Iraq thing. I guess not.

Your choice to stop using a service because of something so minor is silly. People need to stop defining other people by the way they conduct their job. Are you the same person at work around your co-workers as you are with your friends? Of course not. What makes you think politicians are any different?

This is the same ridiculous logic people were spouting a few months ago about Orson Scott Card and boycotting the movie because they happened to disagree with his politics. Stop defining your existence on your politics. You'll be much happier.

Edit: I just looked at your link and all I can say is really? In the posted quote they state their reasons for hiring her-- she's been the "Provost of Stanford University, board member of companies like Hewlett Packard and Charles Schwab, and former United States Secretary of State" as per that exact quote. That's a career anyone would be privileged to have, much less a black woman.

And all you and that website and sputter and shout about is her ALLEGED involvement in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Give me a freaking break.

 

[McMullen]

Personally i disagree, the members of a company's board hint to the company's ethics. Having a board member with such an outspoken disregard for privacy shows that the company's talk of integrity are just empty words and PR dazzle.

And about blacklisting her for life: She was active in lying to motivate the invasion of Iraq. that is not a small... Shall we say misjudgement, to be nice.. That is an extreme one. That also hints of a very questionable ethic. So lack of respect for integrity and a history of lying. Not a good combination if your business is trust.

But ofcourse, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is mine.

I thought we were past the Iraq thing. I guess not.

Your choice to stop using a service because of something so minor is silly. People need to stop defining other people by the way they conduct their job. Are you the same person at work around your co-workers as you are with your friends? Of course not. What makes you think politicians are any different?

This is the same ridiculous logic people were spouting a few months ago about Orson Scott Card and boycotting the movie because they happened to disagree with his politics. Stop defining your existence on your politics. You'll be much happier.

Edit: I just looked at your link and all I can say is really? In the posted quote they state their reasons for hiring her-- she's been the "Provost of Stanford University, board member of companies like Hewlett Packard and Charles Schwab, and former United States Secretary of State" as per that exact quote. That's a career anyone would be privileged to have, much less a black woman.

And all you and that website and sputter and shout about is her ALLEGED involvement in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Give me a freaking break.

Not sure I care one way or another about this argument, but something you said seems strange. You talk about her career and say all that the site can talk about is her alleged crimes. Are you implying that having a good career excuses serious misconduct? A person can be successful and a scumbag undeserving of that success at the same time.

Also, the gravity of those charges is quite a bit greater than you make it sound. The reason she would be considered a war criminal is because if the charges are true, then it means thousands of people on both sides are dead because of her. Planning and waging an aggressive war is a war crime because you're causing the deaths of thousands for personal or political gain. That's quite a bit worse than Madoff's crimes, and no one was lining up to pardon him for his career successes.

 

[Gronk]

I thought we were past the Iraq thing. I guess not.

Your choice to stop using a service because of something so minor is silly. People need to stop defining other people by the way they conduct their job. Are you the same person at work around your co-workers as you are with your friends? Of course not. What makes you think politicians are any different?

This is the same ridiculous logic people were spouting a few months ago about Orson Scott Card and boycotting the movie because they happened to disagree with his politics. Stop defining your existence on your politics. You'll be much happier.

Well Iraq is still a mess. Just because the americans yelled "victory" and left the scene, doesn't mean iraq has ceased to exist. And what do you mean "past the Iraq thing"? It was only eleven years ago? Over 100,000 people are dead, and the country is still very much in chaos? I bet they are not "past the iraq thing".

And about the second paragraph: Being sectretary of state was a job. Being on the board of Dropbox is not? Or what are you arguing here? I very much doubt that you can be sectretary of state in such an active way and be a totally different person when off the job. And frankly i don't care if she is. Who she is at home doesn't affect me. Who she is on her job does, however.

If people want to boycott one thing or another, because they feel that it goes against their ethics, why it that such a bad thing? Is it a human right to act like an idiot and not have people react to that? You often hear "stop whining and vote with your wallet".. this is exactly what people are doing.

 

[Ieyke]

She may have changed since then for all you know.

LOL

blacklisting people from life for life just isn't something I support.

You should probably reevaluate that stance. There are more than enough people in the world. The systematic elimination of those who aren't up to standard is the surer way to improve the situation. The more permanently and completely you can eliminate them, the better.

 

[SirDeadly]

Hey, if they want to share my university readings they can be my guest... I only really use it for uni and just because this person who I haven't actually heard of joined a panel is not enough reason to inconvenience myself and stop using Dropbox.

 

[lacktheknack]

She may have changed since then for all you know.

LOL

blacklisting people from life for life just isn't something I support.

You should probably reevaluate that stance. There are more than enough people in the world. The systematic elimination of those who aren't up to standard is the surer way to improve the situation. The more permanently and completely you can eliminate them, the better.

ITT: Murder advocacy with a misguided and small-minded justification of "but overpopulation".

Dude, we keep meeting low-fertility population estimates. Unless we have a random baby boom (I highly doubt it), population is going to fix itself by 2050 (UN estimates).

So no, "complete systemic elimination" will not fix shit.

Also, "up to standard"... I'd sooner live in a world with Condoleezza Rice than someone who wants elimination of people not up to standard. Especially since you're presumably the one setting the standard. -___-

No.

Following this logic, people should have been fleeing the US in droves at the first sign of unethical behavior on the government's part. They didn't, so I can only assume that ethics are only worth upholding if it doesn't really bother you to do so.

Well, not really, that behaviour wouldn't necessarily be consistent with the OP's choice at all. It's a relatively small and manageable change to stop using Dropbox; it's a colossal upheaval to leave a country.

It may be following a similar line of reasoning, but it's on a ludicrously different scale. There's no equivalence between the two acts.

Yes there is. If you're genuinely concerned about your country lying to you so that it can spend billions and billions of dollars attacking a country for no adequate reason, and you suspect that the higher government has no qualms about doing it again, you really should leave.

That's what they're concerned about. They're concerned that Rice will repeat her actions in a small context. If they're REALLY concerned about a government official being unethical easily in Dropbox's panel (what the hell is she even going to do?) then they should have fled while she and others like her were in government office.

But no, that wouldn't have been convenient. Well, sorry, but I'm not going to hold two standards just because some website thinks I should.

 

[Shingeki no Gingerbeard]

If you're genuinely concerned about your country lying to you so that it can spend billions and billions of dollars attacking a country for no adequate reason, and you suspect that the higher government has no qualms about doing it again, you really should leave.

That's what they're concerned about. They're concerned that Rice will repeat her actions in a small context. If they're REALLY concerned about a government official being unethical easily in Dropbox's panel (what the hell is she even going to do?) then they should have fled while she and others like her were in government office.

But no, that wouldn't have been convenient. Well, sorry, but I'm not going to hold two standards just because some website thinks I should.

No, you shouldn't feel compelled to leave your country. First off, it's your home. Secondly, if your moral outrage is so high then why wouldn't you fight for change? Why wouldn't you fight to bring the unjust to justice? If it's your country, and you don't like the direction it's leadership is heading in, then you change it. Following your train of thought, Suffrage never would have happened because women would have simply mass-emigrated to someplace else for the right to vote. Blacks would have followed suit a few decades later.

Nobody stays in power forever. The nice thing about a democratic republic is that power tends to change hands frequently, and when someone else comes to power they tend to clean house. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend an amoral government isn't not your problem then fine, that's your right, but don't you DARE advocate that someone else should follow suit. Telling people to join in your own amorality, while simultaneously criticizing someone else for their ALLEGED amorality, is the definition of hypocrisy.

Yes, I say alleged. Rice never went to trial for lying to the American people or members of Congress. No members of either Bush Administrations were ever charged with war crimes. What people think are war crimes, and what actually constitute war crimes, can be two very different things. All too often, people confuse their emotions for what the law actually codifies.

 

[lacktheknack]

If you're genuinely concerned about your country lying to you so that it can spend billions and billions of dollars attacking a country for no adequate reason, and you suspect that the higher government has no qualms about doing it again, you really should leave.

That's what they're concerned about. They're concerned that Rice will repeat her actions in a small context. If they're REALLY concerned about a government official being unethical easily in Dropbox's panel (what the hell is she even going to do?) then they should have fled while she and others like her were in government office.

But no, that wouldn't have been convenient. Well, sorry, but I'm not going to hold two standards just because some website thinks I should.

No, you shouldn't feel compelled to leave your country. First off, it's your home. Secondly, if your moral outrage is so high then why wouldn't you fight for change? Why wouldn't you fight to bring the unjust to justice? If it's your country, and you don't like the direction it's leadership is heading in, then you change it. Following your train of thought, Suffrage never would have happened because women would have simply mass-emigrated to someplace else for the right to vote. Blacks would have followed suit a few decades later.

Nobody stays in power forever. The nice thing about a democratic republic is that power tends to change hands frequently, and when someone else comes to power they tend to clean house. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend an amoral government isn't not your problem then fine, that's your right, but don't you DARE advocate that someone else should follow suit. Telling people to join in your own amorality, while simultaneously criticizing someone else for their ALLEGED amorality, is the definition of hypocrisy.

Yes, I say alleged. Rice never went to trial for lying to the American people or members of Congress. No members of either Bush Administrations were ever charged with war crimes. What people think are war crimes, and what actually constitute war crimes, can be two very different things. All too often, people confuse their emotions for what the law actually codifies.

I'm not saying an unethical government isn't my problem. I live in Canada, and while the current PM is somewhat unpopular, I've not seen any confirmed instances of egregiously unethical behavior.

And if they do do something immensely stupid, like declare war on some country in Africa for the resources, I'll leave.

But that's just me.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Nah it's too convenient to make me leave. Maybe when Hitler's ghost joins the board.

 

[Gronk]

...then they should have fled while she and others like her were in government office.

I don't know if you're talking about me, but just so we're clear here: I'm NOT from the US, so...

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Out of the four reasons given, only one is even tangentially related to her job at dropbox. And a single pro-wiretapping board member is not nearly enough to convince me to care about this at all.

If we're going to protest at every executive with shitty opinions we're going to be at it until the end of time.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

That's pretty much how politics works in the US. Politicians and legislators do awesome work for corporations so that when their careers are over they can work for one of the corporations they helped. It's a sick system and it's a far cry from what democracy is supposed to be. You can't fix this issue by refusing to use services from corporations with political ties. You'd have to become a hermit in order to do that. You can fix the issue by working towards getting money out of politics. There's a group of people in the US trying to do just that. They're called Wolf PAC. You can join them and help them however you can if you truly care about this issue.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes there is. If you're genuinely concerned about your country lying to you so that it can spend billions and billions of dollars attacking a country for no adequate reason, and you suspect that the higher government has no qualms about doing it again, you really should leave.

I'm not arguing with the rationale. I'm only saying there's very little equivalence between stopping using Dropbox and leaving a country, because the difference in scale is immense.

That's what they're concerned about. They're concerned that Rice will repeat her actions in a small context. If they're REALLY concerned about a government official being unethical easily in Dropbox's panel (what the hell is she even going to do?) then they should have fled while she and others like her were in government office.

But no, that wouldn't have been convenient. Well, sorry, but I'm not going to hold two standards just because some website thinks I should.

I really don't think that's what motivates the Dropbox-droppers. I think they just want to send a (small) message.

You have very, very exacting standards if you consider somebody to be holding a double-standard if they won't leave the country to protest something.

 

[Shingeki no Gingerbeard]

I'm not saying an unethical government isn't my problem. I live in Canada, and while the current PM is somewhat unpopular, I've not seen any confirmed instances of egregiously unethical behavior.

And if they do do something immensely stupid, like declare war on some country in Africa for the resources, I'll leave.

But that's just me.

Do you live in Toronto? I hear Robert Ford did some pretty questionable things while in office.

If he were mayor of your fair city, would you move?

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm not saying an unethical government isn't my problem. I live in Canada, and while the current PM is somewhat unpopular, I've not seen any confirmed instances of egregiously unethical behavior.

And if they do do something immensely stupid, like declare war on some country in Africa for the resources, I'll leave.

But that's just me.

Do you live in Toronto? I hear Robert Ford did some pretty questionable things while in office.

If he were mayor of your fair city, would you move?

I live in Edmonton, the mortal enemy of Toronto.

Also, did he actually do anything wildly unethical beyond cocaine, knocking over old ladies at City Hall and generally being an idiot? I've not heard beyond that.

 

[the December King]

...

Is this at all related to the possibly bigoted actions of a certain Firefox CEO, and people boycotting because of it? If so, I get what you're driving at... The idea that someone who is pro wiretapping, and had such a hand in the possible/plausible leading of America into an illegal war for oil, now in a position of relative control of my Dropbox is a little disturbing...

But now that I think of it, I really don't know anything about the company itself, nor could I sum up anything as to the character of it's Founder or it's previous CEOs, boardmembers and Directors.

I say boycott it if it bothers you. There are alternatives.