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

Post by danans » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 10:45 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 hermanzegerman » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 10:50 PM UTC

xp84 wrote: post #133

wobfan wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you're right, they also went out of their way to prevent competent users from using local accounts and/or not upload their BitLocker keys. I could understand if the default is an online account + automatic key upload, but only if you add an opt-out option to it. It might not even be visible by default, like, idk, hide it somewhere so that you can be sure that the median MS user won't see it and won't think abou…

I really doubt those motives are "evil." They're in the business of selling and supporting an OS. Most people couldn't safeguard a 10-byte password on their own, they're not going to have a solution for saving their encryption key that keeps it safer than it'd be with Microsoft, and that goes for both criminals (or people otherwise facing law enforcement scrutiny) and normal grandmas who just want to not have all the…

Post by Zak » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 10:54 PM UTC

chaps wrote: post #242

Zak wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People shouldn't entrust highly sensitive data to third parties who aren't highly motivated to protect it. That means different things in different situations, but if you're likely to be investigated by the FBI, don't give Microsoft the encryption keys to your laptop.

As many, many people have pointed out -- many people don't know that their drives are encrypted or know that these protections exist. You're also assuming that the FBI doesn't investigate just random people. "I'm not doing anything bad, why should I worry?" You're making a lot of assumptions about how people use their computers, their understanding of their own devices, and the banality of building argumentation arou…

Post by 1718627440 » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 11:27 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #140

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 . These have different meanings. Microsoft is legally entitled to refuse a request from law enforcement, and subject to criminal penalties if it refuses a valid legal order. It does illustrate a significant vulnerability in that Mi…

Post by 15155 » Sat, Jan 24, 2026, 11:38 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…