4 ms·
> Microsoft told Forbes that the company sometimes provides BitLocker recovery keys to authorities, having received an average of 20 such requests per year. A
by cogman10 10mo ago
> Microsoft told Forbes that the company sometimes provides BitLocker recovery keys to authorities, having received an average of 20 such requests per year.
At least they are honest about it, but a good reason to switch over to linux. Particularly if you travel.
If microsoft is giving these keys out to the US government, they are almost certainly giving them to all other governments that request them.
- TrainedMonkey 10mo agoAll other governments is a stretch here, but likelihood of at least one another government getting same privileges is extremely high.
- Aurornis 10mo agoIt's not like companies have a choice. If they have a key in their possession and law enforcement gets an order for it, they have to provide it.
- function_seven 10mo agoThat only strengthens the parent point. Switch to an OS where this requirement doesn't come into play if you're worried about any governments having a backdoor into your own machine.
- charcircuit 10mo agoIf you sync your Linux machines key in the cloud, police could subpoena it too. The solution is not to switch to Linux, but to stop storing it in plain text in the cloud.
- NewsaHackO 10mo agoDo you know what a private key means in this context?
- charcircuit 10mo agoNo, I don't. The bitlocker key is a symmetric key.
- NewsaHackO 10mo agoOk, do you at least know what private means?
- charcircuit 10mo agoNot public.
- aksss 10mo agoCheck behind your kid's stereo - what's that? Oh, it's a PGP key and gram of meth!
- Aurornis 10mo ago> Switch to an OS where this requirement doesn't come into play I use BitLocker on my Windows box without uploading the keys. I don't even have it connected to a Microsoft account. This isn't a requirement.
- knowitnone3 10mo agoexcept Microsoft probably as a master key
- zzrrt 10mo agoPeople know the system well enough to write FOSS implementations of it; I think they would have noticed and sounded the alarm if there were a possible master key.
- codedokode 10mo agoI don't think anybody is interested in reverse-engineering closed-source OS to check if it works as documented; it;s easier to just use Linux which has open-source code.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- bryan_w 10mo ago> I don't think Well at least you got that part correct. Do you just not know about security researchers? Or even bug bounty programs? Why are you even on this forum? Doesn't seem like you know much about technology
- Krssst 10mo agoConsidering Windows's history with user consent I would be worried about the keys eventually being uploaded without asking the user and without linking online accounts. Probably not now but not something unimaginable in some future. However, since Windows can still run on user-controlled hardware (non-secure boot or VMs), I guess this kind of behavior could be checked for by intercepting communications before TLS encryption.
- Zambyte 10mo ago> It's not like companies have a choice. > If they have a key in their possession [...] So they do have a choice.
- mc32 10mo agoPeople/users have an option to keep the key themselves. Most wouldn’t bother to manage encryption keys.
- attila-lendvai 10mo agoput $10 into the pub box for commenting without reading the OP, or at least being reasonably well informed before commenting.
- egorfine 10mo agoAnd even if they don't have the key. Case in point: https://medium.com/@tahirbalarabe2/the-encryption-dilemma-why-apple-disabled-end-to-end-encryption-in-the-uk-c09b5f2b4208 https://medium.com/@tahirbalarabe2/the-encryption-dilemma-wh...
- zugi 10mo agoThanks for the link, interesting article. The UK is among the worst in this regard. Regarding the article's Apple example: > The FBI eventually found a third party to break into the phone, but the tension between privacy and security remains unresolved. This is actually quite resolved. - Tech companies in the US are free to write secure encryption technologies without backdoors. - Government is free to try to break it when they have valid legal authority. - Tech companies are obligated to turn over information in their possession when given a legal warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause that a crime has occurred. - Tech companies are not required to help hack into systems on the government's behalf. As far as I'm concerned, in the US things are perfectly resolved, and quite well I think. It's the government and fear-mongers who constantly try to "unresolve" things.
- illusive4 10mo ago[dead]
- slashdave 10mo agoWhy take the drastic step of switching to linux (a difficult endeavor) when you can simply turn off key uploading.
- varun_ch 10mo agoWhy continue to use an operating system that’s adversarial towards you?
- bogwog 10mo agoI will never understand this from software engineers/tech people in general. That demographic knows how technology works, and are equipped to see exactly where and how Microsoft is taking advantage of them, and how the relationship is all take and zero give from their end. These people are also in the strongest position to switch to Linux. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that there's an element of irrationality to it. Apple has a well known cult, but Microsoft might have one that's more subtle? Or maybe it's a reverse thing where they hate Linux for some equally irrational reasons? That one is harder to understand because Linux is just a kernel, not a corporation with a specific identity or spokesperson (except maybe Torvalds, but afaik he's well-regarded by everyone)
- wolvoleo 10mo agoBecause that gives you a lot more control over your computer than just solving this particular issue. If you care about privacy it's definitely a good idea.