I be downvoted into hell but here it goes:

Yes; and Apple also has a convicted woman abuser on board...

http://qz.com/476599/dr-dre-rapper-turned-apple-guru-wants-y...

Personally my concerns with Condoleezza Rice were as much to do with her support of warrantless NSA wire-tapping as the Iraq war conduct.

The idea of someone who is in favour of the NSA hoovering up as much data as possible being on the board of a company who's job it is to securely manage huge quantities of personal data, just doesn't strike me as a good statement of their concern for personal privacy...

Are we talking about Ron Sugar here? He has never actually had a position in government where he sold out the public to drop bombs on the children of the other side of the world. So no, I don't put him in the same category as Sec. Rice.

However, even if I did:

This is definitely Apples-and-Oranges. Apple is a company that is difficult to replicate. A household name. It has established supply chains around the world and a retail presence in many major cities. I don't think that Apple's value is anywhere near as dependent on trust as Dropbox's is. And having a known liar, torturer, and war criminal on your board doesn't scream trust.

Now, do I think Apple is a bad company? Hell yeah. I don't use their products either. But I think they're bad more for their behavior vis a vis IP (eg, the Samsung bezel claim) than for the constitution of their board.

edit: I totally forgot that they put Al Gore on the board. Is that who you mean? If so, yeah, I don't put him alongside Condi.