I'm just saying that their statement (not the appointment, but what they said right here) is completely at odds with the notion that they care about the privacy of their users.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not focused on data privacy, I'm merely noting that this statement appears to either contradict the facts at hand or be an implicit admission that they don't care about data privacy.
So I guess that comes down to what Rice's exact views are.
Personally, I doubt she's completely against the idea of data privacy in all cases and thus it's possible that Dropbox's existing views and policies on data privacy are compatible with hers.
And anyway, I doubt that Dropbox could or would stop responding to FISA requests or warrants regardless of who's on the board considering that they operate in the US.
FISA requests and warrants aren't really at issue here. Warrants are exactly how this stuff is supposed to be done. FISA requests are pretty much just an odd form of warrant, and any opposition to them comes down to thinking they shouldn't be issued, not that they shouldn't be obeyed. The issue at hand is warrantless surveillance. Does Dropbox hand over user data to the government without a warrant? If not, given that Rice is in favor of such things and Dropbox says she fully supports their commitments, there is a contradiction somewhere.