Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

Post by Forgeties79 » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 10:27 PM UTC

lqstuart wrote: post #239

Forgeties79 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The headline is misleading. It says that Microsoft will provide the key if asked , but the linked statement to Forbes says Microsoft will provide the key if it receives a valid legal order . This is an odd thing to split hairs over IMO. Warrants or subpoenas or just asking nicely, whatever bar you want to set, is a secondary concern. The main issue is they can and will hand the keys to LEO’s at all.

If you don’t like the behavior of a company voluntarily doing something, your problem is with that company. If you don’t like a company complying with the law, your problem is with the law. It is unreasonable to expect anyone or any company to break the law or violate a court order to protect you. If you don’t trust the institutions issuing those court orders, that is an entirely reasonable stance but it should be ad…

Post by _jab » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 10:30 PM UTC

pedalpete wrote: post #251

Controversial question here. When someone is arrested, the police can get a subpoena to enter your house, right? There they can collect evidence regarding the case. Digital protections should exist, but should they exist beyond what is available in the physical world? If so, why? I think the wording of this is far too lenient and I understand the controversy of "if asked" vs "valid legal order", neither of which stri…

Post by B1FIDO » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 10:36 PM UTC

_jab wrote: post #254

pedalpete wrote: post #251

Controversial question here. When someone is arrested, the police can get a subpoena to enter your house, right? There they can collect evidence regarding the case. Digital protections should exist, but should they exist beyond what is available in the physical world? If so, why? I think the wording of this is far too lenient and I understand the controversy of "if asked" vs "valid legal order", neither of which stri…

Completely agree. Crazier question: what’s wrong with a well-intentioned surveillance state? Preventing crime is a noble goal, and sometimes I just don’t think some vague notion of privacy is more important than that. I sometimes feel that the tech community would find the above opinion far more outlandish than the general population would.

Post by aprentic » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 10:41 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #203

aprentic wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I mean. If you tell people, "I'll take care of safeguarding your key for you," it sounds like you're just doing them a favor. It would be more honest to say, "I can hold on to a copy of your key and automatically unlock your data when we think you need it opened," but that would make it too obvious that they might do so without your permission.

I think most people would be ok with your second formulation too.

Post by runjake » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 10:44 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #193

runjake wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, "asked" versus "ordered" is meaningfully misleading, especially in this context. There is reasonable suspicion, some might argue evidence, that Microsoft voluntarily cooperated with U.S. Intelligence Community without being compelled by a court order, the most famous instances being leaked in the Snowden disclosures. To be fair to Microsoft, here's their updated statement (emphasis mine): "Microsoft confirmed to…

You’ve overly simplified the degree to which a company must accept a court order without pushback. First they are capable of fulfilling the request in the first place which means their approach or encryption is inherently flawed. Second companies can very much push back on such requests with many examples of such working, but they need to make the attempt.