Wow, thanks so much for the reply!<p>Your answer to my second question is interesting because I kind of understand the tin-foil-hat argument, but I don&#x27;t totally see how Rice would create additional pressure to violate privacy. She&#x27;s a civilian now and, presumably, completely locked out of the current administration.<p>To me (someone without a tin-foil hat), I think the issue is more symbolic. Rice is a terrible human being and a seasoned deceiver of the public. It&#x27;s almost like we&#x27;re asking ourselves, &quot;If you&#x27;d allow <i>her</i> to be part of your leadership, what else would you do?&quot;<p>When I&#x27;ve thought about it, that wasn&#x27;t enough to counterbalance exactly what you mentioned -- the idea that a single privacy breach at Dropbox could mean the end of the company. She&#x27;s barely a part of the leadership and may have almost no say in what the company does. The ultimate decisions are probably still in the hands of the executive team. That&#x27;s why I was a customer until very recently.<p>All that said, I don&#x27;t understand how Rice is valuable enough to counterbalance the bad PR from the tech community. Tech-y people get small companies to adopt certain brands over others, and then those small companies grow into large companies. Maybe I&#x27;m naive, and Rice offers some amazing connections or something?<p>Either way, if much of the Dropbox team has your attitude and values, I can honestly say I hope the company has a prosperous, breach-free future ahead of it.