Clearly you are implying exactly Condoleezza Rice, but if you look at the other companies she is a board member/advisor for you find a diverse groups of companies. It makes sense for someone who wants to stay current with the latest in business to seek a diverse portfolio of companies to be a part of.
One board member being formerly involved in politics doesn't strike me as valid the way you are comparing it to Theranos.
I have approximately the same take. But why do we think Drew Houston recruited Rice for his board? Is it the Stanford connection? Does Dropbox do a large amount of GSA business we haven't heard about? Surely it can't be because he supports Rice's performance as National Security Advisor.
I think Rice is towards the bottom of a list of architects of the Iraq War, for what it's worth; only Powell is further removed from it. It probably goes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, {Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, &c}, a bunch of other people, and then Rice and Powell. She's a critic --- not very credibly, but a critic nonetheless --- of the actual execution of the war.
I wouldn't hire her, but my reaction to her involvement with Dropbox is less visceral than, I don't know, puzzlement?
That's all a matter of values. By hiring her, Dropbox gives the impression that they are endorsing her and what she did in the past, or that "her past does not matter". Which is a very sad call to make when you respect human life.
I understand why people believe this, but strictly speaking, it isn't true. Employing someone isn't an endorsement for all their positions, and even more to the point, employing someone who was in the past affiliated with an organization isn't an endorsement of the whole organization.
Again: I wouldn't hire her, and I'm more confused by her presence on the board than anything else.
I think a board seat is rather different than employment. I am comfortable with political and "values" tests for company directors that I would consider inappropriate for an employee.
Don't get me wrong! I'm not uncomfortable with the values test here! I'm just confused as to the logic behind appointing her, and thus about what her appointment says about Dropbox.
"Formerly involved in politics" hardly scratches the surface of what Rice is. Rice got on national television and told America that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Rice was also instrumental in leading the CIA to torture of certain detainees. Rice should be on trial at the Hague, not collecting honoraria for sitting on corporate boards.
This is not related to the implication made that she is an equivalent to the board at Theranos.
One one side you have people who are actively using their political influence to help a company avoid laws and regulations and operate an extremely careless, dangerous, fraudulent, etc. company in a very sensitive industry dealing with people's lives.
On the other side is a former politician who appears to be diversifying her experiences by being a member of the board of several venture-backed tech companies, one of which is a pretty decent way to share files.
The motivations and sinisterness of one of them stands in stark contrast to the other in the example made.
No, she leaves it up to the reader's imagination (note the evocative final sentence) to bridge the inch-wide gap between what she's willing to say, and want she wants to be able to say. Clearly the type of person you want on your board.
And that's a very curious example you cite considering Iran was the place the neocons wanted to invade next under the same set of false pretenses.
"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device. The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
* Iraq has the infrastructure [for a nuclear program]
* Iraq has the nuclear scientists with the know-how
* Iraq was "far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought" after the 1st gulf war
* Specifically, maybe six months from a crude device
* There is uncertainty about how quickly Iraq could acquire nuclear weapons
Sorry, but these are all facts. Saddam DID have a nuclear weapons program at the time of the 1st gulf war, and to the surprise of inspectors he was in fact very, very close to building a 1st-generation bomb. That's why there was an ongoing international inspection regime thereafter.
Although the specific uranium enrichment plant was destroyed after the 1st gulf war, a lot of dual use equipment was kept around. Those nuclear scientists didn't go anywhere. And for reasons that to this day seem bizarre, given what played out, Iraq was playing "cat and mouse games" with the nuclear inspectors (quote from Hans Blix) and there was a great deal of uncertainty about the current status.
Those are facts. Google them yourself.
Did Iraq actually have weapons of mass destruction? No. Did the US and UK oversell the case for war? Yes. Did a great humanitarian tragedy happen as a result? Yes. But that didn't make Ms. Rice a lier when she said what specifically what was quoted above. We must pay careful attention to factual accuracy.
I believe he is on record for saying this, after he was captured. He was probably right, given that both Iran and Israel wanted to wipe him off the map. Iraq uber Saddam was a pariah state. But he underestimated the willingness of the US and UK to actually go to war.
I didn't say they weren't facts, I was just pointing out that if you have a quote and want to know it's correct, you just google it. Don't you agree with that?
Yes. At least Dropbox isn't selling snake oil. I find it just appalling that these high ranking officials were seemingly cashing in by sitting on the board of a corrupt company.
I wish we could adopt Taleb's idea of capping lifetime earnings for anyone who takes a job as a high ranking public servant.
