To be fair, this was almost a decade ago. Has she mentioned what her stance on this is today?
I saw her speak at Google in '09. She took questions, which were largely softballs, when finally one guy had the courage to ask something along the lines of, "Don't you want to apologize?" She was visibly annoyed; unapologetic and completely dismissive.
I left the talk, blood boiling, thinking, gee, there really are no consequences for this woman (and the bush admin).
That said, she's a skilled enough political figure that I'd be shocked if she doesn't have a more diplomatic line to trot out now. Hard political lines are bad for business.
Maybe she'll help Dropbox navigate those challenges to help protect the privacy of their users (black hat to white hat), but I'm dubious. She had a historic opportunity and went in the extreme other direction.
And in terms of corporate liability with respect to extant surveillance practices, a consistent line of argument and arm-twisting has been to proffer immunity in return for cooperation. ("Give us the data, and you won't be liable, criminally nor civilly.")
So... I don't see her new role at Dropbox as particularly encouraging with respect to the privacy of Dropbox users' data. Her concern, per the above, will be to ensure that if and when Dropbox provides surveillance access, the corporation cannot be prosecuted nor sued for doing so.
If you want some context for this argument, just refer back to all the stink about telecommunications companies' liability/immunity that erupted particularly into the public dialog around 2007 - 2008. Look also at the deals that have been proposed for what access ISP's should be required to provide and what they would get in return. Etc.
(Yeah, not directly comparable, but she is still very much a sociopath, just like all other high-ranking politicians. True, this is just an assertion I'm making, so take it for what it's worth, but please do think for yourself.)