MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Condi Joins DropBox (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/509653/condi-joins-dropbox/)

 
subego Apr 10, 2014 04:16 PM
Condi Joins DropBox
Let it be entered into the record I couldn't give less of a shit.
 
OreoCookie Apr 10, 2014 04:30 PM
When I first read that, I thought it was a joke. Then, when I figured it wasn't a joke, I just thought »What?« I still have no idea why they appointed her.
 
subego Apr 10, 2014 04:42 PM
Why wouldn't they want her? She's tack-sharp, motivated, and incredibly well connected.
 
Mike Wuerthele Apr 10, 2014 04:45 PM
 
subego Apr 10, 2014 04:51 PM
My foil hat says something nerd related is going down in the halls of power, and Condi was asked by her pals at the NSA to draw fire for them.

The fact it's working was cause for a big laugh all around.
 
OreoCookie Apr 10, 2014 06:16 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4273360)
Why wouldn't they want her? She's tack-sharp, motivated, and incredibly well connected.
Privacy concerns, for one.

If we think for a second that her role is similar to that of Al Gore on Apple's board, i. e. you'd like to be politically connected on topics the former politician cares about (in Gore's case, the environment), then I don't see this as a good move for Dropbox. Otherwise, I don't see what Rice, intelligent as she undoubtedly is, adds to the board.
 
subego Apr 10, 2014 06:40 PM
Privacy? This is DropBox we're talking here. What privacy?

Why would I think she fills the role Al Gore does? If what DropBox wants is global reach, you can't do much better than a former Secretary of State to help that happen.

Of the things I listed, connected is what DropBox will make the most use of.
 
OreoCookie Apr 10, 2014 07:06 PM
There is no need to be so aggressive?
Of course, you should expect a certain degree of privacy with Dropbox, e. g. I should be certain that you don't have access to my files unless I share them to you. Sure, sysadmins have full access to my data just like sysadmins at banks have full access to my account. That doesn't mean I have voided any right for privacy. In view of the NSA scandal, Dropbox is sending the wrong message to its customers.
 
subego Apr 10, 2014 07:24 PM
I'm not being aggressive. Sorry if I came off that way.

Stealing your bitz is a hacker job. As smart as Condi is she wouldn't know the first thing to do to facilitate that.

I guarantee the NSA has plants at DropBox. They're the ones who do the stealing, that is... when they need to steal it. Usually all they need to do is ask.



Note: I use that definition of "ask" wherein you get prison time for saying no.
 
OreoCookie Apr 10, 2014 07:42 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4273382)
I guarantee the NSA has plants at DropBox. They're the ones who do the stealing, that is... when they need to steal it. Usually all they need to do is ask.

Note: I use that definition of "ask" wherein you get prison time for saying no.
Yes, but Dropbox implicitly endorses this policy whereas other companies such as Apple are at least (publicly) reluctant to support such policies, even if just for the reason that this is bad for business.
 
subego Apr 10, 2014 07:49 PM
They implicitly support it by installing Condi?
 
subego Apr 10, 2014 07:51 PM
And I have two words to say about Al Gore... Clipper Chip.
 
OreoCookie Apr 10, 2014 08:39 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4273386)
They implicitly support it by installing Condi?
Yes.
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4273387)
And I have two words to say about Al Gore... Clipper Chip.
Al Gore made environmental causes his mission, and guess what Apple is doing? It's building its data centers and its new spaceship HQ as eco-friendly as possible. So to me, appointing Al Gore to the board makes sense, even if he is just a figure head for environmental causes.
 
subego Apr 10, 2014 09:28 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4273389)
Yes.
Why?
 
Shaddim Apr 11, 2014 12:38 AM
Apple's nod to environmentalism, like most other corporations, is a PR move, as was their appointment of Gore. If they truly cared about the environment they'd choose to have their products manufactured in countries that care about pollution. They could make a statement, draw the line and say that a clean planet is worth more to them than higher profits, but they won't, despite being the wealthiest company in the world. The same goes for human rights issues. They care about the Earth, and humanity, when it's convenient, and that makes them just like any other faceless corporation, despite their hipster clothes and what they say. I hope that everyone has learned that talk is cheap, whether from companies or the government, that should be self-evident given their actions over the last decade. Saviors are marked by their actions.
 
ebuddy Apr 11, 2014 08:03 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4273380)
There is no need to be so aggressive?
What on earth was aggressive in what subego said?

Let's all come to grips here that what's most bothersome about the move is that Condi is right-of-center and worked in the Bush Administration. Period. Never mind that she was Provost of Stanford University, with Ph.D. in poli-sci, board member of Hewlett Packard and Charles Schwab, or Secretary of State, or National Security Advisor before running around with important information became en vogue.

Seriously, let's not pretend your distaste for this is anything more than that. Unless you think she's going to process memory dumps to folks in Obama's cabinet, I'm not sure what you feel is the big concern here with this move.
 
subego Apr 11, 2014 02:55 PM
And let's not mince words. Whatever the Bush administration did to our privacy*, the Obama administration topped it by an order of magnitude.



*And you know, I don't agree with it, but I'm willing to cut a little more slack to the administration who had 9/11 drop in their lap. This caused some cloudy after-the-fact judgement. Obama voted to give FISC the keys to the castle in 2008. What's his excuse?
 
Shaddim Apr 11, 2014 04:37 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4273416)
What on earth was aggressive in what subego said?

Let's all come to grips here that what's most bothersome about the move is that Condi is right-of-center and worked in the Bush Administration. Period. Never mind that she was Provost of Stanford University, with Ph.D. in poli-sci, board member of Hewlett Packard and Charles Schwab, or Secretary of State, or National Security Advisor before running around with important information became en vogue.

Seriously, let's not pretend your distaste for this is anything more than that. Unless you think she's going to process memory dumps to folks in Obama's cabinet, I'm not sure what you feel is the big concern here with this move.
Damned right. She'd be an asset to any multinational business, a game-changing one. I'd hire her for our NPO, if I could afford her and she'd take the job.

Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4273453)
And let's not mince words. Whatever the Bush administration did to our privacy*, the Obama administration topped it by an order of magnitude.



*And you know, I don't agree with it, but I'm willing to cut a little more slack to the administration who had 9/11 drop in their lap. This caused some cloudy after-the-fact judgement. Obama voted to give FISC the keys to the castle in 2008. What's his excuse?
Indeed, they doubled-down on all the worst ideas, and added several of their own. In terms of further erosion of civil liberties, corruption, and reckless expenditure, this is quite possibly the worst administration in this nation's history. It makes Dubya's look like a bastion of freedom and moderation. Typically I don't wish ill will on anyone, but I feel that as a country we'd be much better off if Obama slipped on a bar of soap in the presidential shower and stayed in a coma for the next few years. Yeah, that means I'd (much) rather have Biden, gods help me. :shake:
 
OreoCookie Apr 11, 2014 05:48 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4273406)
Apple's nod to environmentalism, like most other corporations, is a PR move, as was their appointment of Gore.
Greenpeace and other environmental organizations have recognized Apple's efforts to become a greener company. Like I said earlier, I agree that Gore's appointment to Apple's board is mostly an endorsement of his policies (no matter what you think about what has come out of it).
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4273416)
Let's all come to grips here that what's most bothersome about the move is that Condi is right-of-center and worked in the Bush Administration. Period. Never mind that she was Provost of Stanford University, with Ph.D. in poli-sci, board member of Hewlett Packard and Charles Schwab, or Secretary of State, or National Security Advisor before running around with important information became en vogue.
I've never claimed that Rice isn't extremely sharp. But that doesn't make her qualified to lead a tech company. Other than being a figure head, I don't see what she'd add to Dropbox's board.
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4273416)
Seriously, let's not pretend your distaste for this is anything more than that. Unless you think she's going to process memory dumps to folks in Obama's cabinet, I'm not sure what you feel is the big concern here with this move.
In this particular instance, my distaste for her concerns just her support for NSA surveillance measures -- which is immediately relevant to the discussion. Rice's hire will change nothing, she won't function as an intermediary between Dropbox and the NSA, that's just tinfoil-hattery. I just object to Dropbox's endorsement.
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4273453)
And let's not mince words. Whatever the Bush administration did to our privacy*, the Obama administration topped it by an order of magnitude.
I think you're giving too much credit to the respective Presidents and forget about Congress whose role should be much more significant. Congress is in charge of keeping the executive branch in check, and they're doing a lousy job. Heads of various agencies are allowed to lie in closed sessions, committees which are ineffective at controlling the various spy agencies, etc. Obama, especially as a scholar of constitutional law, should know better, but I think one fatal mistake you're making is to think this is a partisan thing or hinges on a single man.

The only reason I'm disappointed in Obama in particular is because I thought he wouldn't stand for something like that. (That's not something I could say about the majority of Congress.)
 
Shaddim Apr 11, 2014 09:14 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4273485)
Greenpeace and other environmental organizations have recognized Apple's efforts to become a greener company. Like I said earlier, I agree that Gore's appointment to Apple's board is mostly an endorsement of his policies (no matter what you think about what has come out of it).
Their feeble lip service to environmental concerns mean nothing when their entire business is structured around exploiting the planet and squirreling away 10s-of-$billions each year in offshore shelters. Sure, they donate money to Greenpeace and a host of other Green big talkers, but only because it's cheaper to do that than clean up their own act. Hey, they aren't the only ones, it's standard corporate practice, but it does make them sound more hypocritical than most.
 
ebuddy Apr 12, 2014 09:47 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4273485)
I've never claimed that Rice isn't extremely sharp. But that doesn't make her qualified to lead a tech company. Other than being a figure head, I don't see what she'd add to Dropbox's board.
She's not being asked to "lead a tech company", she's being asked to serve on the board of a tech company; something she's done faithfully with Hewlett Packard (a tech company) and Charles Schwab (an online trading firm - a tech company). I'd say this likely makes her more qualified than most others right off the bat. Unless you can cite some concerns with an ability to separate her positions as National Security Advisor to the President of the United States and Secretary of State of the United States of America as a guarantor of our national security in the aftermath of the largest attack on the US since Pearl Harbor and serving on the board of two private tech firms, your complaint is pretty baseless and yes... rife with tinfoil-hattery. They serve two entirely different interests. I think she's sharp enough to get this and demonstratively effective at serving the interests at stake.

Quote
In this particular instance, my distaste for her concerns just her support for NSA surveillance measures -- which is immediately relevant to the discussion. Rice's hire will change nothing, she won't function as an intermediary between Dropbox and the NSA, that's just tinfoil-hattery. I just object to Dropbox's endorsement.
It's not an endorsement, it's a win-win situation they actively sought to bolster their global footprint. She supported a program authorized by the President of the United States for those with established connections to Al Qaeda specifically, a review necessary by a Judiciary panel every 45 days. Ahh... the good ol' days. Anyway, how is that at all relevant to the services provided by Dropbox?

Another Administration would consider the sole MO of this objection to be that of racism and then you'd be forced into the position of proving it wasn't.
 
OAW Apr 12, 2014 02:15 PM
Clearly Condi Rice was one of the main architects of the Iraq war. Perhaps not as much as Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld but let's face it ... she was knee-deep in the mix. And while I may not agree with her politics ... the lady is sharp as a tack ... and this is business. I think the privacy concerns over her appointment to the Dropbox board are seriously overblown.

OAW
 
subego Apr 14, 2014 03:34 AM
My understanding is she wasn't particularly thrilled with the idea, just like Powell, but had a job to do.

However, unlike Powell, she didn't/doesn't have the type of personality to put operators like Cheney and Rumsfeld in their place. Hell... even Powell appeared to have limited ability to do so, and he was a ****ing four star general.

I'll leave the meaning behind the President of the United States not even rating a mention in this discussion of the politics behind the Iraq war as an exercise for the reader.
 
subego Apr 14, 2014 03:39 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4273485)
I think you're giving too much credit to the respective Presidents and forget about Congress whose role should be much more significant. Congress is in charge of keeping the executive branch in check, and they're doing a lousy job. Heads of various agencies are allowed to lie in closed sessions, committees which are ineffective at controlling the various spy agencies, etc. Obama, especially as a scholar of constitutional law, should know better, but I think one fatal mistake you're making is to think this is a partisan thing or hinges on a single man.
Hence me taking to task the person who voted for the FISC expansion when they were in Congress, rather than a Secretary of State or National Security Adviser.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2