I wholeheartedly agree with this cause, but think the framing is terrible. It's clouding the picture by making things political when they don't need to be. Ric

I wholeheartedly agree with this cause, but think the framing is terrible. It's clouding the picture by making things political when they don't need to be. Rice's support of the Iraq war does not matter. Dropbox will not be starting wars or having anything to do with them, besides possibly getting lucrative DoD contracts. Rice's position on torture does not matter. Dropbox has no reason or likelihood of torture. Rice's involvement with Chevron does not matter. If anything, this is evidence that she might be an okay choice. The only thing which matters is her position on warrantless wiretapping. It's not political. I'm just not comfortable having someone make key privacy decisions who, on the record, doesn't believe in my right to privacy. Even if (bizarrely) you think mass surveillance might be acceptable, you should oppose Rice being on the board. Our system works best when there's an adversarial relationship between actors—when the government comes knocking, corporations will at least ask a couple questions about why, even just to verify this is a legitimate government request. Having someone who designed, and firmly believes in, the surveillance state on BOTH sides of the table destroys that. So, yes, drop Dropbox.