In reality, Rice could've been recruited because of her relationships with top govt. security officials, in the hopes of facilitating more conversations, in which Dropbox has more leverage, to push back against mass surveillance.
If something like this isn't the case, then firing Rice wouldn't be a resolution anyway.
Rice was probably hired for several of the reasons that you mentioned above. Ultimately though, it's hard to make useful speculation from outside of the company, with little knowledge of the company's long-term goals.
That's not exactly reassuring vis-a-vis their ethical character.
As for character, it's unclear what's unsettling about presumed utilitarians acting towards what they believe to be best outcomes.
If that's the problem, then shouldn't they explain the connection? Since they won't, it's only natural to assume the obvious.
And why would one presume them utilitarians?
The guys at Dropbox are smart; isn't the "obvious" assumption that Rice could be useful in helping them to better manage some of these interests (e.g. potentially reducing govt. snooping by facilitating a more level playing field for comms. and negotiation)?.
Aren't most reasonable people utilitarians? :)
If by reasonable, you mean "rational" in the sense of rational choice theory, and if by "utilitarians" you mean "maximize of their own individual utility" rather than "adherents to the philosophical school of utilitarianism", then, yes, all reasonable people are utilitarians, by definition.