As a country, we are having a great national conversation and debate about exactly how to manage privacy concerns
The phrase "having a conversation" or "having a debate" shits me off more than any other bullshit speak. The reason being, whenever somebody uses it, it is exactly because they don't want to have a debate about that topic because they know they're in the wrong. Nobody ever says "we're having a debate about privacy" and then goes on to actually debate it. It's just used by companies or organisations who are doing something objectionable and want to see whether they can get away with it. If everybody complains, well they "listened to your feedback" and can it.
For example, I went to a panel recently about Google glasses that had some Google employees on it. Every time privacy was brought up they said "well that's a debate that we [society] should be having" even though they were literally in a debate about it right there, they never actually put forward their case. They just leave it at this vague notion of a "conversation" that society is having in general without engaging in it themselves. And it's because they know people are opposed to what they are doing, and so engaging in an actual substantive debate about it won't help them at all (not really trying to pick on google here, this is just the first example that came to mind). They just want to ride out the storm and then continue doing exactly what they are doing.
As you said, the phrase "having a national conversation" is a thought-ending cliche designed specifically to terminate constructive thought on the matter in question.
I think the correct response to that kind of statement is, "so, defend your opinion right now, and we can further this 'conversation' you're referring to." Force a fight, then win using facts.
The debate is really happening, because it is impossible to provide a browser-client cloud data service without also creating a massive collection of people's private information. And this entire ecosystem has been largely unregulated to date.
In daily life the debate looks like this: "that service could make my life better, and it's free. But do I feel comfortable sharing my info with this company?" Remember the big news cycle about Gmail's ad targeting technology? But since then millions of people have signed up to use Gmail anyway. So I would not agree that society as a whole has deemed this sort of thing to be wholly bad.
> impossible to provide a browser-client cloud data service without also creating a massive collection of people's private information
Well instead of just hoovering up every photo you take with Glass into G+ [1], they could implement even a fig-leaf's worth of client-side encryption. This is far from impossible. Just saying.
[1] Not just by default, but as I understand it, without even the option of turning that off.
Client-side encryption doesn't help much with privacy concerns because the client and the server are both wholly produced by Google, so you have to assume that Google can pierce that encryption if they want to. That's exactly what happened with DropBox.
It helps protect against unauthorized access, but doesn't really address privacy concerns with Google itself.
I did say "fig leaf". But some level of client-side would at least demonstrate good will, or some level of "giving a fsck".
There is a real difference though, which is the difference between code on your client which perhaps you could at least check if you're stubborn enough[1], and plaintext in a datacenter. This can mean the difference between targeted surveillance and mass surveillance.
Dropbox is a separate case - it was always "trust us" (we have your keys) encryption, and not what I would refer to as "client side" at all.
[1] This is a hard problem if you don't trust the OS
Gosh, if DP wasn't so convenient and worked so well. They've always given off a "not quite right" vibe from the corporate level that I can't quite put my finger on ever since the TC Cribs video [1]. The weird public responses surrounding privacy and security issues since then have kind of reinforced this feeling. [2][3] But it's so convenient and works so well you kind of quickly forget about all the fuss. And even this [4] just sort of blew by like a summer storm.
It goes to show how offering a really good service can make all kinds of principles take a back seat I guess. Let's see how many people offering to boycott DP are still on the service in 3 or 4 months now.
Starting a war that cost thousands of lives on now-proven false claims and condoning torture does seem to be a bit more evil than contributing a few thousand dollars to a piece of legislation. But no, no boycott I imagine.
Yes, I'm now boycotting Dropbox, effective immediately. I'll also pen them an email detailing why I disapprove of their decision.
It's clear that my data isn't secure on Dropbox now, and, all things considered, I'd rather not support a company who makes morally unsound decisions such as recruiting a war criminal to be on their board.
If she resigns, I'm ok with that. If they kick her out, I'm ok with that too. If they come up with a very plausible rationale for why this isn't an amazing dick move, I'll stay with them. But I'm guessing I'll be migrating off Dropbox RSN...
I'm honestly not sure how much they'd give a shit if I told them I'm going to "stop using the free space they've given me" because of the bad person they just put on their board.
I get the feeling she has gained a lot of respect from wealthy and powerful people in general and has quite a few connections.
For example, she is also on the newly created 13-person College Football Playoff selection committee even though she has never played or coached football. One sports writer justified it as she has a "plethora of experience making important decisions under intense pressure". This is the committee that will decide which 4 teams get to play for the championship.
Heh, many people have a "plethora of experience making important decisions under intense pressure". The question is, were most (or any) of these decisions correct?
My pure speculation is; File hosting at the consumer level a race to the bottom with pricing. Given they are not in a position to price this service strategically at little to no margin like MS/Google, storage will likely have diminishing profitability and viability as a standalone business (also more new entrants).
On the other hand some corporate and especially government department contracts shouldn't have the same margin pressure and retention issues. A high profile political person is the perfect fit to pursue government department contracts, and Rice would fit this strategy well.
Her firm [1] was already providing consulting services to DB. They specialize in companies trying to deal with doing business in Asia (South, SE and East). She probably saw that they're about to have a major expansion in those territories, invested or go some shares, got placed on the board so she can help with that expansion and get a huge payout in the end.
Because Internet services like Dropbox are only going to get more regulated, and Rice has the sort of connections and experience to help DropBox mitigate the impact.
“As a country, we are having a great national conversation and debate about exactly how to manage privacy concerns,” Rice says about her new position. “I look forward to helping Dropbox navigate it.”
When dealing with pretty much any national level politican closely associated with the executive branch of either the current administration or the previous one it is really easy to read this in a cartoon "evil villain" voice with an implied ellipsis and malicious sarcasm on the "...navigate it" part.
The phrase "having a conversation" or "having a debate" shits me off more than any other bullshit speak. The reason being, whenever somebody uses it, it is exactly because they don't want to have a debate about that topic because they know they're in the wrong. Nobody ever says "we're having a debate about privacy" and then goes on to actually debate it. It's just used by companies or organisations who are doing something objectionable and want to see whether they can get away with it. If everybody complains, well they "listened to your feedback" and can it.
For example, I went to a panel recently about Google glasses that had some Google employees on it. Every time privacy was brought up they said "well that's a debate that we [society] should be having" even though they were literally in a debate about it right there, they never actually put forward their case. They just leave it at this vague notion of a "conversation" that society is having in general without engaging in it themselves. And it's because they know people are opposed to what they are doing, and so engaging in an actual substantive debate about it won't help them at all (not really trying to pick on google here, this is just the first example that came to mind). They just want to ride out the storm and then continue doing exactly what they are doing.