21–30 of 58 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be completely irresponsible to not encrypt the data in transit between data centers.
Maybe, but Gmail just started doing that a year ago: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/20/5530072/google-encrypts-gm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be completely irresponsible to not encrypt the data in transit between data centers.
And completely unreasonable not to suspect that the NSA can freely acquire those keys.
The clear point of this is not to protect from NSA/US Courts but to minimise tax. I'm not sure why they never setup out of Ireland in the first place, every other US company with international revenues has already. In addition unless Microsoft wins its appeal US courts have ruled that a US company eg: Dropbox can be forced to provide any data they have even if it is outside the US
Right. I mean, Condolezza Rice is on the board of Dropbox. If there's a company that is going to have pressure from shareholders to make data available to the government it's going to be Dropbox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. I mean, Condolezza Rice is on the board of Dropbox. If there's a company that is going to have pressure from shareholders to make data available to the government it's going to be Dropbox.
If she doesn't work for the govt. anymore why would she do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. I mean, Condolezza Rice is on the board of Dropbox. If there's a company that is going to have pressure from shareholders to make data available to the government it's going to be Dropbox.
If she doesn't work for the govt. anymore why would she do that?
(When she joined Dropbox, there was a huge fooforaw over whether her actions under Bush during the Iraq War constituted war crimes. Honestly I felt like that was a red herring in this particular case--regardless of your feelings the war, it should be obvious that you don't want even partial control of your private documents going to a person who thinks that the government should be allowed to read your private documents.)
This post[0] in the Dropbox forum points out that Dropbox is suspected of the intention to minimize tax payable. [0]: https://www.dropboxforum.com/hc/communities/public/questions...
"Tax evasion" is crossing over a not very well defined and continually shifting line - and is illegal.
At the moment, at least from where I see the world here in Australia, all the "global tech giants" (and mining/resource ones too) are doing a significantly better job of navigating the shifting tax rules across various national tax jurisdictions to minimize their tax obligations - than the governments and bureaucracies are doing of collecting "fair" taxes from them. Our local popular press is full of stories of FaceBook/Google/Apple paying zero tax in Australia because they can structure their invoicing/payments to and from different parts of the same global corporate entity – in entirely legal ways that result in zero tax owing in Australia.
I'd think less of Dropbox's senior management and advisor team if they weren't trying to take advantage of the same loopholes.
It's "Modern Corporation 101" grade stuff - "Maximise shareholder value by whatever means won't put the company directors in jail. Don't talk about ethics or fairness or duty to society (except in the Marketing Department and advertising). Talk about duty to shareholders and what's close enough to technically legal that our lawyers will sign off on it."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If she doesn't work for the govt. anymore why would she do that?
Money,
I'd suggest "ideology" is a much more powerful motivator here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. I mean, Condolezza Rice is on the board of Dropbox. If there's a company that is going to have pressure from shareholders to make data available to the government it's going to be Dropbox.
If she doesn't work for the govt. anymore why would she do that?