Maybe we should boycott Amazon. Not boycotting Dropbox because we didn't do the same for Amazon doesn't get us anywhere.
Amazon is actively supporting infrastructure to an agency that supports torture. Condaleeza isn't even in power any more. It's not that you shouldn't boycott Dropbox, it's that you are probably not really doing anything as a result of not doing it when it matters. The thing that created Condaleeza is still moving full steam ahead.
That's probably true, but we have to consider the situation in the context of what's practicable in our own lives.
I have a Dropbox account, and I use Amazon's cloud service to host my sites. I will be canceling my Dropbox account as a protest, but probably will not cancel Amazon's cloud services. Why? Because I still need my paycheck, I still need to put food on my kids' plates at the end of the night -- and I do this in part with Amazon's cloud services. I have to pick and choose, and compromise along the way when I'm making my voice heard.
It's okay that sometimes some big companies get away it, and some don't. Godaddy got picked on a lot... there was a symbol attached to the Godaddy situation (a CEO who hunts elephants, and says weird things) -- in the end we won, because there was an easy narrative to follow. It wasn't perfect justice all the way, but what matters is progress was made at the end of the day -- SOPA was then beaten.
In a similar fashion, it's okay if folks decide to stick with Amazon's services, because ditching it would bring them a lot of inconvenience. We don't all have the resources and time to be ditching every service we don't like on principle -- we can pick and choose. We can pick and choose, especially, when there's momentum going on. Right now there's momentum going on with this Dropbox thing -- let it happen, this is how progress is made. Next time, a company will think twice before appointing to their board a warmonger.
edit (mostly to duaneb): to be clear, I am canceling my paid Dropbox account. Though, I think it's a good idea to cancel free Dropbox accounts in this case as well.
This is a difficult situation to balance, because what you are suggesting, from my perspective, ends up being about saying, "I will quit working here unless we quit using Vendor X!" - that will end predictably, and I have lost that fight over GoDaddy as well. At the end of a day of following such a philosophy, I have no job, the Evil Vendor(tm) still gets their money, and I have to explain to people at Next Potential Job(tm) why I don't seem to be a team player.
That said, these are important fights to fight at some level. When I was dealing with hardware, I found many of our decisions frustrating. I found it frustrating that we cared about the USD$ cost of power, and not the environmental cost of it. I found it frustrating that we turned off almost all power saving features of our hardware because they don't deliver as one would hope and tend to harm the workload in a way that may actually require more gear which is expensive, has a carbon cost to manufacture, and has a carbon cost to operate and cool. Guess what? a 2U Rackmount server that sometimes runs at 1.5Ghz for a few seconds instead of running at 2.8GHz all of the time doesn't have a significant impact on the cooling bill, and it can reasonably be expected that your cooling power budget will be roughly equal to your equipment power budget, probably higher because of infrastructure overhead.
It is difficult to find a framework in which to push these decisions because the day to day business does not center around them.
The solution is for decision makers to make them a priority, just like worker safety and other things which don't obviously contribute to the short-term bottom line. I can't spend all of my time advocating up for socially responsible decisions.
Also, Amazon may be in a difficult place wrt other contracts with the government, they may have gotten themselves somewhat entangled. Dropbox does not need Condoleeza Rice on its' board, and it's hard to envision what value she will have other than internally advocating for cooperation with the government and its' defense armature.
That is what she does.
No, you distorted parent's statement by slightly reframing the perspective when it should be read like this:
It speaks volumes about you that you are outspoken on ethical issues except when it comes to putting food on your kid's plates.
But this structure can be applied to varying degrees in varying situations. A company who keeps an unencrypted copy of all my files and welcomes, for no particularly good reason, an INCREDIBLE advocate of overreach in government surveillance, not to mention violent tactics such as torture to extract information, and an architect of today's guantanamo bay facility, onto their board is a reason to be concerned about doing business with that company.
This is a great comment. I'm going to challenge you to do something I suspect you'll be resistant to.
You admit that some times you have to sacrifice your values for a greater cause (in this case your family's well being).
I challenge you to look back on the things you believe Condoleezza Rice did wrong and think about them as though she was making the same sort of sacrifice. Does that change your opinion of her?
Where do you draw the line? A government agency leverages services to further it's agenda- should those businesses take a moral position?
That argument follows the same structure.
For what it's worth, I'm not talking about Ms. Rice here. It's the argument that bothers me. Seems shaky.
Some of us live in the real world where we have to pick our battles.
I also note that if I wanted this controversy to fade away, I would seed conversations with people who say things exactly like this.
There is no way to know for sure!
Now that is an overstatement! Please don't give them so much credit. They are just sociopaths in pursuit of (more)power; no ideology behind them.
And of course if you do become an ascetic hermit, then you're just a crazy hippie.