14 ms·

FYI BitLocker is on by default in Windows 11. The defaults will also upload the BitLocker key to a Microsoft Account if available. This is why the FBI can comp

• whalesalad 10mo ago
  Any power users should avoid Windows entirely.
  • bigyabai 10mo ago
    If by "power user" you mean "enemy of the state", there's a lot of software you'd be better-off avoiding.
    • phanimahesh 10mo ago
      That is a strange viewpoint. Are we calling everyone who wants some control over their computers enemies of the state?
      • bigyabai 10mo ago
        It's holistic philosophy. You're not going to save yourself from FBI surveillance by avoiding Windows, I guarantee that to you.
        • thewebguyd 10mo ago
          You're not going to avoid any state surveillance if the state is really interested in you specifically. But you can still help prevent abuses of mass surveillance without probable cause by making such surveillance as expensive and difficult as possible for the state
      • WarOnPrivacy 10mo ago
        > Are we calling everyone who wants some control over their computers enemies of the state? As of today at 00:00 UTC, no. But there's an increasingly possible future where authoritarian governments will brand users who practice 'non-prescribed use' as enemies of the state. And when we have a government who's leader openly gifts deep, direct access to federal power to unethical tech leaders who've funded elections (ex:Thiel), that branding would be a powerful perk to have access to (even if indirectly).
    • wolvoleo 10mo ago
      "enemy of the state" depends a lot on the current state of the state. Eg in England you're already an enemy of the state when you protest against Israel's actions in Gaza. In America if you don't like civilians being executed by ICE. This is really a bad time to throw "enemy of the state" around as if this only applies to the worst people. Current developments are the ideal time to show that these powers can be abused.
      • deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      • blipvert 10mo ago
        Very much hyperbolic about the UK. You’re fine protesting against Israel, but Palestine Action is a proscribed group (not that I agree with that!) and that will land you in trouble.
      • RandomNickname 10mo ago
        No you aren't,why are you lying. You can protest all you want,the only time people got in trouble was because of the Nazi flags the protestors were using and extreme Islamists trying to recruit terrorists.
    • pawelduda 10mo ago
      Maybe he's just trying to avoid Candy Crush Saga
      • amitav1 10mo ago
        I can't think of anybody apart from Osama bin Laden who wouldn't want to play Candy Crush. \s
    • anonym29 10mo ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46700219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46700219 Criticizing the current administration? That sounds like something an enemy of the state would do! Prepare yourself for the 3am FBI raid, evildoer! You're an enemy of the state, after all, that means you deserve it! /s
  • drnick1 10mo ago
    This. Real "power users" (as opposed to people who aren't completely computer-illiterate) use the likes of Arch Linux and Gentoo and self-host whatever "cloud" services they need, they aren't running Windows and paying for Copilot 365 subscriptions.
• tokyobreakfast 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  • devkit1 10mo ago
    The quality of journalism you consume is highly dependent on the sources you choose. Some outlets still highly value journalistic integrity. I prefer to read those. Not that any of them are perfect. But it makes a huge difference and they typically provide a much more nuanced view. The Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal are good examples of this in my opinion.
  • pjc50 10mo ago
    Microsoft shouldn't be uploading keys, but nor should they be turning bitlocker on without proper key backup. Therefore it should be left as an optional feature.
• mattmaroon 10mo ago
  It’s definitely better than no encryption at all, which would be what most people would have otherwise.
• cesarb 10mo ago
  > Any power users who prefer their own key management should follow the steps to enable Bitlocker without uploading keys to a connected Microsoft account. Once the feature exists, it's much easier to use it by accident. A finger slip, a bug in a Windows update, or even a cosmic ray flipping the "do not upload" bit in memory, could all lead to the key being accidentally uploaded. And it's a silent failure: the security properties of the system have changed without any visible indication that it happened.
  • tokyobreakfast 10mo ago
    >even a cosmic ray flipping the "do not upload" bit in memory Stats on this very likely scenario?
    • halfmatthalfcat 10mo ago
      It's "HN-likely" which translates to "almost never" in reality.
      • patja 10mo ago
        Especially since HN readers are more likely to be using ECC memory
      • smegger001 10mo ago
        if cosmic ray bit flips were so rare then ecc ram wouldn't be a thing.
        • Sayrus 10mo ago
          ECC protects against more events than cosmic rays. Those events are much more likely, for instance magnetic/electric interferences or chip issues.
          • wang_li 10mo ago
            In the 2010 era of RAM density, random bit flips were really uncommon. I worked with over a thousand systems which would report ECC errors when they happen and the only memorable events at all were actual DIMM failures. Also, around 1999-2000, Sun blamed cosmic rays for bit flips for random crashes with their UltraSPARC II CPU modules.
• wolvoleo 10mo ago
  It would make me a lot less angry if Microsoft didn't go out of their way to force people to use a Microsoft account of course.
• postalcoder 10mo ago
  I'm not sure how to do this on Windows, but to disable FileVault cloud key backup on Mac, go to `Settings > Users & Groups > click on the (i) tooltip next to your account` and uncheck "Allow user to reset password using Apple Account". This is a part of Settings that you will never see at a passing glance, so it's easy to forget that you may have it on. I'd also like to gently push back against the cynicism expressed about having a feature like this. There are more people who benefit from a feature like this than not. They're more likely thinking "I forgot my password and I want to get the pictures of my family back" than fully internalizing the principles and practices of self custody - one of which is that if you lose your keys, you lose everything.
  • Melatonic 10mo ago
    Or use a local account to login ?
    • dcrazy 10mo ago
      I’m not sure if you misunderstand how macOS accounts work or how FileVault works. There are two ways to log into macOS: a local user account or an LDAP (e.g. OpenDirectory, Active Directory) account. Either of these types of accounts may be associated with an iCloud account. macOS doesn’t work like Windows where your Microsoft account is your login credential for the local machine. FileVault key escrow is something you can enable when enabling FileVault, usually during initial machine setup. You must be logged into iCloud (which happens in a previous step of the Setup Assistant) and have iCloud Keychain enabled. The key that wraps the FileVault volume encryption key will be stored in your iCloud Keychain, which is end-to-end encrypted with a key that Apple does not have access to. If you are locked out of your FileVault-encrypted laptop (e.g. your local user account has been deleted or its password has been changed, and therefore you cannot provide the key to decrypt the volume encryption key), you can instead provide your iCloud credentials, which will use the wrapping key stored in escrow to decrypt the volume encryption key. This will get you access to the drive so you can copy data off or restore your local account credentials.
      • 10mo ago
• vik0 10mo ago
  You can always count on someone coming along and defending the multi-trillion dollar corporation that just so happens to take a screenshot of your screen every few seconds (among many, many - too many other things)
  • ryandrake 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    • walletdrainer 10mo ago
      This is ridiculous. There are a lot of people here criticising MSFT for implementing a perfectly reasonable encryption scheme. This isn’t some secret backdoor, but a huge security improvement for end-users. This mechanism is what allows FDE to be on by default, just like (unencrypted) iCloud backups do for Apple users. Calling bs on people trying to paint this as something it’s not is not “whiteknighting”.
  • Aurornis 10mo ago
    Sorry to interrupt the daily rage session with some neutral facts about how Windows and the law work. > that just so happens to take a screenshot of your screen every few seconds Recall is off by default. You have to go turn it on if you want it.
    • dns_snek 10mo ago
      It only became off by default after those "daily rage sessions" created sufficient public pressure to turn them off. Microsoft also happens to own LinkedIn which conveniently "forgets" all of my privacy settings every time I decide to review them (about once a year) and discover that they had been toggled back to the privacy-invasive value without my knowledge. This has happened several times over the years.
      • Numerlor 10mo ago
        > It only became off by default after those "daily rage sessions" created sufficient public pressure to turn them off. 99% of the daily rage sessions happened before it was even released
• Hizonner 10mo ago
  The "reasonable default" is to force the user to actually make the choice, probably after forcing the user to prove they understand the implications.
  • x0x0 10mo ago
    I don't think there's a good answer here. Users absolutely 100% will lose their password and recovery key and not understand that even if the bytes are on a desk physically next to you, they are gone. Gone baby gone. In university, I helped a friend set up encryption on a drive w/ his work after a pen drive with work on it was stolen. He insisted he would not lose the password. We went through the discussion of "this is real encryption. If you lose the password, you may as well have wiped the files. It is not in any way recoverable. I need you to understand this." 6 weeks is all it took him.
    • thewebguyd 10mo ago
      Apple gives users the choice during set up assistant, no reason Microsoft can't.
    • knollimar 10mo ago
      I bet he learned a valuable lesson
    • direwolf20 10mo ago
      Then you don't want encrypt by default and anyone who goes out of their way knows what they're doing
      • toraway 10mo ago
        Okay, so then the default for 95% of users is no encryption at all and police (or the far more likely thief, roommate, etc) don't even have to bother with a warrant to get all your data. Improving the situation ... how exactly?
        • 10mo ago
• paulpauper 10mo ago
  VeraCrypt exists for this reason or other open source programs. Why would you ever trust encryption to closed source?
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• Melatonic 10mo ago
  Exactly. And any halfway decent corporate IT setup would be managing the keys themselves as well (although I would imagine many third party tools could also be compelled to do this with a proper warrant) Bitlocker on by default (even if Microsoft does have the keys and complies with warrants) is still a hell if a lot better than the old default of no encryption. At least some rando can't steal your laptop, pop out the HDD, and take whatever data they want.
• riversflow 10mo ago
  > you have no choice but to give it to them There is always a choice.
• drnick1 10mo ago
  > Any power users who prefer their own key management should follow the steps to enable Bitlocker without uploading keys to a connected Microsoft account. The real issue is that you can't be sure that the keys aren't uploaded even if you opt out. At this point, the only thing that can restore trust in Microsoft is open sourcing Windows.
  • Aurornis 10mo ago
    > The real issue is that you can't be sure that the keys aren't uploaded even if you opt out. The fully security conscious option is to not link a Microsoft account at all. I just did a Windows 11 install on a workstation (Windows mandatory for some software) and it was really easy to set up without a Microsoft account.
    • vanviegen 10mo ago
      And how do you know the keys are never uploaded if you don't have an account?
      • jjnoakes 10mo ago
        The same way you know that your browser session secrets, bank account information, crypto private keys, and other sensitive information is never uploaded. That is to say, you don't, really - you have to partially trust Microsoft and partially rely on folks that do black-box testing, network analysis, decompilation, and other investigative techniques on closed-source software.
      • criddell 10mo ago
        Air gap the machine.
    • MereInterest 10mo ago
      Last time I needed to install Windows 11, avoiding making a Microsoft account required (1) opening a command line to run `oobe/bypassnro`, and (2) skipping past the wifi config screen. While these are quick steps, neither of those are at all "easy", since they require a user to first know that it is an option in the first place. And newer builds of Windows 11 are removing these methods, to force use of a Microsoft account. [0] [0] https://www.windowslatest.com/2025/10/07/microsoft-confirms-windows-11-to-require-microsoft-account-internet-during-oobe-tested/ https://www.windowslatest.com/2025/10/07/microsoft-confirms-...
• g947o 10mo ago
  > It protects their data in the event that someone steals the laptop, but still allows them to recover their own data later from the hard drive. False. If you only put the keys on the Microsoft account, and Microsoft closes your account for whatever reason, you are done.
  • pohuing 10mo ago
    Yes if someone steals your laptop at the same moment Microsoft bans you you're done. What's the likelyhood of that happening? done here meaning you've lost your data which uhhh, is currently on a drive in the hands of thieves, so what did you lose again?
    • g947o 10mo ago
      I think you are confused. The issue is about getting locked out of your own data, which can easily happen in a number of cases. And you don't necessarily need to actually have your account banned. Let's just say you signed up for a Microsoft account when setting up for a new PC (well, because you have to). You don't use that account anywhere else, and you forgot the password, even though you can log in via PIN or something else. Now you install Linux or just boot to a different system once. When you need to boot to Windows again, good luck. And that's just one of the cases. A real disaster happened to someone, although on a different platform, and the context is a bit different: https://hey.paris/posts/appleid/ https://hey.paris/posts/appleid/
• throwway120385 10mo ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't forcing you to divulge your encryption password compelled speech? So the police can crack my phone but they can't force me to tell them my PIN.
  • fn-mote 10mo ago
    In the US. But this is irrelevant to the argument made above, right?
  • dcrazy 10mo ago
    Warrants are a mechanism by which speech is legally compelled. The 5th Amendment gives you the right to refuse speech that might implicate you in a crime. It doesn’t protect Microsoft from being compelled to provide information that may implicate one of its customers in a crime.
    • salawat 10mo ago
      Indeed. Third Party Doctrine has undermined 4th/5th Amendment protections due to the hair brained power grab that was "if you share info with a third party as art of the only way of doing business, you waive 4th Amendment protections. I ironically, Boomers basically knee-capped Constitutional protections for the very data most critically in need of protection in a network state. Only fix is apparently waiting until enough for to cram through an Amendment/set a precedent to fix it.
      • qingcharles 10mo ago
        Well, SCOTUS has ummed and erred over several cases about whether to extend the 4th Amend to third party data in some scenarios. IIRC there is an online email case working up through 9th Cir right now? One of the reasons giving for (usually) now requiring a warrant to open your phone they grab from you is because of the amount of third-party data you can access through it, although IIRC they framed is a regular 4th Amend issue by saying if you had a security camera inside your house the police would be bypassing the warrant requirement by seeing directly into your abode.
• kypro 10mo ago
  I think this is a fair position and believe you're making it in good faith, but I can't help but disagree. I think the reasonable default here would be to not upload to MS severs without explicit consent about what that means in practise. I suspect if you actually asked the average person if they're okay with MS having access to all of the data on their device (including browser history, emails, photos) they'd probably say no if they could. Maybe I'm wrong though... I admit I have a bad theory of mind when it comes to this stuff because I struggle to understand why people don't value privacy more.
• armada651 10mo ago
  > If your company has data that the police want and they can get a warrant, you have no choice but to give it to them. They can fight the warrant, if you don't at least object to it then "giving the keys away" is not an incorrect characterization.
  • plagiarist 10mo ago
    This is my thought also. So they're only holding the keys to prevent anyone from whining about lost data, they don't actually want to be responsible.
  • jasonfarnon 10mo ago
    In court? Not really. These warrants are on solid ground from a legal standpoint. To the point that fighting them could be a sanction-able kind of grandstanding.
    • armada651 10mo ago
      Sanction-able? I'm not saying you shouldn't comply with a valid warrant, I'm saying that you should object to whether there was probable cause for the warrant.
      • jasonfarnon 10mo ago
        Yeah you shouldn't object in bad faith. I.e., you need to genuinely believe there's no probably cause here, and that's not a reasonable position.
        • armada651 10mo ago
          If they don't have any evidence that'd lead them to believe the data they're searching for is on that laptop, then you can reasonably object that there's no probable cause to search the laptop.
• mistercheph 10mo ago
  Yeah guys, if it's encrypted by default, it's not a violation of user security or privacy expectations to have a set of master keys that you hold onto and give to third parties to decrypt user devices. I mean it was just encrypted by default... by default...
• thewebguyd 10mo ago
  > Any power users who prefer their own key management should follow the steps to enable Bitlocker without uploading keys to a connected Microsoft account. Except the steps to to that are disable bitlocker, create a local user account (assuming you initially signed in with a Microsoft account because Ms now forces it on you for home editions of windows), delete your existing keys from OneDrive, then re-encrypt using your local account and make sure not to sign into your Microsoft account or link it to Windows again. A much more sensible default would be to give the user a choice right from the beginning much like how Apple does it. When you go through set up assistant on mac, it doesn't assume you are an idiot and literally asks you up front "Do you want to store your recovery key in iCloud or not?"
  • modeless 10mo ago
    They don't do that for iMessage though... https://james.darpinian.com/blog/apple-imessage-encryption https://james.darpinian.com/blog/apple-imessage-encryption
    • thewebguyd 10mo ago
      Only because others you communicate with may not have ADP turned on, which is a flaw with any service that you cannot control what the other end does or does not do, not unique to Apple/iMessage outside of using something like Signal.
      • modeless 10mo ago
        Most other E2EE messaging services do not break their own E2EE by intentionally uploading messages or encryption keys to servers owned by the same company in a form that they can read. For example, Google's Messages app does not do this for E2EE conversations. This isn't something that only Signal cares about.
        • tcfhgj 10mo ago
          How do you know the messages app doesn't so this
• throwaway85825 10mo ago
  That would be all well and good if any of this was communicated to the user.
• giancarlostoro 10mo ago
  To be fair, if they didn't have BitLocker enabled at all, the FBI would have just scanned the hard-drive as-is. The only usefulness of BitLocker is if a stranger steals your laptop, assuming Microsoft doesn't hand out the keys to just anybody, your files should be safe, in theory.
• matheusmoreira 10mo ago
  Power users should stop bothering with Windows nonsense and install Linux instead so that they can actually have control over their system. It's 2026. The abuses of corporations are well documented. Anyone who still chooses Windows of their own volition is quite literally asking for it and they deserve everything that happens to them.
  • SmellTheGlove 10mo ago
    I’ll bite. What Linux distro currently has the nicest desktop experience? I work on a MacBook but my desktop is a windows PC that I use for gaming and personal projects. I hear Proton has made the former pretty good now, and the latter is mostly in WSL for me anyway. Maybe a good time to try. What do you suggest? I’ll try it in a VM or live usb.
    • amitav1 10mo ago
      Something with KDE. Never used KDE extensively because I hate non-tiling WMs, but something like Kubuntu would give you a more windows-esque experience by default. Here's the download link: https://kubuntu.org/download/ https://kubuntu.org/download/ Bon appetit!
      • andai 10mo ago
        I don't use KDE either, but it does seem to be the most Windows adjacent choice. Unless you like very old versions of Windows in which case you may prefer XFCE like me (Xubuntu or the xfce variant of Linux mint). I heard Kubuntu is not a great distro for KDE, but I can't comment on that personally.
    • mmh0000 10mo ago
      That's literally like asking "What car has the best driving experience?". There is no one answer. If you want something that "just works," Linux Mint[1] is a great starting point. That gets you into Linux without any headache. Then, later when bored, you can branch out into the thousands[2] of Linux distributions that fill every possible niche [1] https://linuxmint.com/ https://linuxmint.com/ [2] https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
• joering2 10mo ago
  > you have no choice but to give it to them Will they shoot me in head? What if I truly forgot the password to my encrypted drive? Will they also shoot me in the head?
  • qingcharles 10mo ago
    Do they need to actually shoot you? Have you had a loaded gun pressed to your head and asked for your password? What about your wife's head? Your kids' heads?
• SilverElfin 10mo ago
  Doesn’t windows 11 force you to use a Microsoft account
• bilekas 10mo ago
  There needs to be more awareness into setting up W11 install ISO's which can be modified to disable bitlocker by default, disable the online account requirement. I recently needed to make a bootable key and found that Rufus out of the box allows you to modify the installer, game changer.
• wing-_-nuts 10mo ago
  >Any power users who prefer their own key management should follow the steps to enable Bitlocker without uploading keys to a connected Microsoft account. I have W11 w a local account and no bitlocker on my desktop computer, but the sheer amount of nonsense MS has been doing these days has really made me question if 'easy modding*' is really enough of a benefit for me to not just nuke it and install linux yet again * You can get the MO2 mod manager running under linux, but it's a pain, much like you can also supposedly run executable mods (downgraders, engine patches, etc) in the game's context, but again, pain
• throwawayqqq11 10mo ago
  The reasonable default is transparency about it and 2FA for recovery scenarios. MS does not have to have the keys in the clear, as it is reasonable for any secrets you store.
• kermatt 10mo ago
  If you are super concerned about their privacy, should you be using Windows anyway? Or any commercial OS for that matter?
• estimator7292 10mo ago
  > Journalists love the "Microsoft gave" framing because it makes Microsoft sound like they're handing these out because they like the cops, but that's not how it works. If your company has data that the police want and they can get a warrant, you have no choice but to give it to them. These two statements are in no way mutually exclusive. Microsoft is gobbling up your supposedly private encryption keys because they love cops and want an excuse to give your supposedly private data to cops. Microsoft could simply not collect your keys and then would have no reason or excuse to hand them to cops. Microsoft chose to do this. Do not be charitable to fascists.
• michaelt 10mo ago
  > If your company has data that the police want and they can get a warrant, you have no choice but to give it to them. Yes. The thing is: Microsoft made the design decision to copy the keys to the cloud, in plaintext. And they made this decision with the full knowledge that the cops could ask for the data. You can encrypt secrets end-to-end - just look at how password managers work - and it means the cops can only subpoena the useless ciphertext. But Microsoft decided not to do that. I dread to think how their passkeys implementation works.
  • kenjackson 10mo ago
    Where did you get that they are stored in plaintext?
    • j_maffe 10mo ago
      It doesn't matter how it's stored. So long as it isn't E2EE, they (and anyone who can ask for it) will be able to access the drives
    • michaelt 10mo ago
      The title of the article: "Microsoft gave FBI set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock suspects' laptops"
      • kenjackson 10mo ago
        Doesn’t say they were stored in plaintext.
  • parl_match 10mo ago
    > Yes. The thing is: Microsoft made the design decision to copy the keys to the cloud, in plaintext. And they made this decision with the full knowledge that the cops could ask for the data. Apple does this too. So does Google. This is nothing new. It's a commonly used feature by the average user who loses their password or their last device. During set up, they even explicitly inform the user that their bitlocker keys are being backed up to the cloud. And, you can still choose to use bitlocker without key escrow.
• Retr0id 10mo ago
  At Microsoft-scale, data requests from law enforcement are an inevitability. Designing a system such that their requests are answerable is a choice. Signal's cloud backup system is an example of a different choice being made.
  • SubmindAlpha66 10mo ago
    ^^^ This
    • tomhow 10mo ago
      Please omit internet tropes on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• knowitnone3 10mo ago
  So you're saying Microsoft gave the FBI the key?
• Centigonal 10mo ago
  MacOS has this feature as well. It used to be called "Allow my iCloud account to unlock my disk," but it keeps getting renamed and moved around in new MacOS versions. I think it's now tied together with remote password resets into one option called "allow user to reset password using Apple Account."
  • blackcatsec 10mo ago
    To be fair, which makes it even more ominous with Apple. At least Microsoft explicitly informs you during setup and isn't trying to hide it behind some vague language about "resetting password".
• morshu9001 10mo ago
  The problem is they don't make this clear to the user or make it easy to opt out. Contrast with how Apple does it.
• alephnerd 10mo ago
  Also, this essay by Mickens at USENIX over a decade ago - https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf Tl;dr - "Basically, you’re either dealing with Mossad or not-Mossad. If your adversary is not-Mossad, then you’ll probably be fine if you pick a good password and don’t respond to emails from ChEaPestPAiNPi11s@ virus-basket.biz.ru. If your adversary is the Mossad, YOU’RE GONNA DIE AND THERE’S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT" (Mickens, 2014)
• themafia 10mo ago
  Hacker News defending corporate key escrow. Wow. > It protects their data in the event that someone steals the laptop, but still allows them to recover their own data later from the hard drive. It allows /anyone/ to recover their data later. You don't have to be a "purist" to hate this.
  • Spivak 10mo ago
    There is no other way for this to work that won't result in an absolutely massive number of people losing their data permanently who had no idea their drive was encrypted. Well there is, leave BitLocker disabled by default and the drive unencrypted. Now the police don't even have to ask! With this scheme the drive is recoverable by the user and unreadable to everyone except you, Microsoft, and the police. Surely that's a massive improvement over sitting in plaintext readable by the world. The people who are prepared to do proper key management will know how to do it themselves. Apple does the same thing with FileVault when you set up with your iCloud account where, again, previously your disk was just left unencrypted.
    • SubmindAlpha66 10mo ago
      "Apple does the same thing with FileVault when you set up with your iCloud account where, again, previously your disk was just left unencrypted" Nah, the FileVault key is stored in your iCloud Keychain when you choose to backup the key to iCloud. And the keychain is end-to-end encrypted. Only the user has access.
      • parl_match 10mo ago
        > Only the user has access This user has been spreading this falsehood so heavily in this thread that it's almost suspicious. When you store your FileVault key in iCloud, it is in escrow (ie accessible by Apple) on older but relevant versions of ios and macos. On newer versions, the situation is improved. However, the terminology on newer versions has changed from "icloud keychain", so frankly, I still think you were talking out of your ass.
    • 10mo ago
• knallfrosch 10mo ago
  20 requests per year also doesn't sound like a privacy problem. These are people where the police got a search warrant for the hard drives. I'd be more concerned about access to cloud data (emails, photos, files.)
• Noaidi 10mo ago
  The same is true for Apple laptops! Take a look in your Passwords app and you will see it automatically saves and syncs your laptop decryption key into the cloud. So all the state needs to get into your laptop is to get access from Apple to your iCloud account.
  • Aloisius 10mo ago
    The iCloud Keychain is end-to-end encrypted.[0] Apple can't decrypt it. That said, when setting up FileVault, you have the option to escrow your recovery key with Apple. If you enable that, Apple can get the recovery key. [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
    • Noaidi 10mo ago
      It does it without asking! Not opt in! It is put in your password keychain automatically.
    • SubmindAlpha66 10mo ago
      From the linked Apple page... "For additional privacy and security, 15 data categories — including Health and passwords in iCloud Keychain — are end-to-end encrypted. Apple doesn't have the encryption keys for these categories, and we can't help you recover this data if you lose access to your account. The table below includes a list of data categories that are always protected by end-to-end encryption." The FileVault keys are stored in the iCloud Keychain and Apple does not have access to them, full stop :-)
      • Noaidi 10mo ago
        > Apple does not have access to them Unless they are given a warrant, then they magically have access to your encrypted data. https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-fbi-icloud-investigation-seattle-protester-arson-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-fbi-icloud-investigati... If they can get access to your icloud, they can get access to your laptop if you store your decryption key in your keychain.
• b65e8bee43c2ed0 10mo ago
  >The defaults will also upload the BitLocker key to a Microsoft Account if available. >This is why the FBI can compel Microsoft to provide the keys. >in my opinion it's the reasonable default I really can't imagine what kind of person would say that with a straight face. Hanlon's razor be damned, I have to ask: are you a Microsoft employee or investor?
• coderatlarge 10mo ago
  user notification is another major litmus test.
• jajuuka 10mo ago
  Similar case with Apple devices. They default to backing up to Apple servers where they are unencrypted. So they can provide data to police if requested. But for anyone concerned about privacy they can use Advanced Data Protection which encrypts all their data and prevents Apple from reading it or recovering it. Definitely agree that choices like these are the most sane for the default user experience and that having these advanced options for power users to do with it what they want is a fair compromise. Wish more people were open to designing software for the average person and compromising on a middle ground the benefits both kinds of users.
• ratelimitsteve 10mo ago
  >can compel Microsoft to provide the keys can they compel testimony? keys, passcodes and the like are usually considered testimony. did they try? the usual story here is that they don't have to, that the big corporations will turn over any info they have on request because they can and the government makes a better friend than a single user. the article mentions 20 "requests" per year on average but doesn't say anything about the government using force. I agree with your conclusion though: data you share with anyone is data you've shared with everyone and that includes your encryption keys. if that matters to you, then you need to take active steps to ensure your own security because compelled or not, the cloud providers aren't here to help keep you safe.
• PunchyHamster 10mo ago
  > Any power users who prefer their own key management should follow the steps to enable Bitlocker without uploading keys to a connected Microsoft account. You mean "Install Linux",because that's easier than dealing with the steps required to do that on Windows
• lrvick 10mo ago
  Microsoft could have done key backups to secure enclaves that will only return them to a user able to produce valid signatures using a backup code or otherwise they hold. Hell they were the ones that normalized remote attestation. But Microsoft chose to keep them plain text, and thus they are, and will continue to be abused. We must not victim blame. This is absolutely corruption on microsofts part.
• elzbardico 10mo ago
  And the only reason windows uploads the keys is that Microsoft wants to help the government while fucking you.
• BLKNSLVR 10mo ago
  So long as Microsoft also "give customer set of BitLocker encryption keys to unlock their own laptop" in the right set of conditions.
• citizenpaul 10mo ago
  None of this matters. XKCD. Hit him with this $5 wrench until he gives you the keys.
  • beeflet 10mo ago
    Mass surveillance through $5 wrench (and massive thug salary) attacks do not scale, but mass surveillance through turn-key decryption does.
    • citizenpaul 10mo ago
      >massive thug salary Common misconception due to movie brain. The average "salary" of a misc gang member is under <30k per year. Violence is cheap any male under 30yo can easily do it and the poor ones are often willing. Junkies will often do anything including murder for next to nothing ie another hit. Junkies are actually quite reliable contrary to movie brain beliefs. Anyway wrench hitting does not need to scale. They only want the passwords of people they perceive as being a threat to them which is a very small number of people.
      • beeflet 10mo ago
        Firstly, ICE agents are making six figures. So in this context it is. You pay for loyalty and secrecy, that is how the government works and how the mafia works. Secondly, it must scale. If the list of perceived enemies is great, you must have great scale to execute violence. If it is small, you must have great scale to execute surveillance. If your surveillance is violent, such as shaking people down for their computers and passwords, then you need scale to attack both large and small enemies. This is why mass surveillance (and prevention thereof) is a meaningful hurdle. The alternatives are physically challenging. The application of the XKCD comic is misleading. It is like saying, why lock your doors at night when a burglar can just bust down your door or pick your lock or break in through a window. The purpose of a locked door or encrypted computer or any form defense is to force your enemy to engage in more expensive and limited measures in attacking you.
• lokar 10mo ago
  This is a really bad take The choice is not between honoring the warrant and breaking the law. They can go to a judge and fight the warrant. Other companies have done this. Microsoft won’t, one more reason I will never use anything from them.
• heavyset_go 10mo ago
  > Journalists love the "Microsoft gave" framing because it makes Microsoft sound like they're handing these out because they like the cops, but that's not how it works. If your company has data that the police want and they can get a warrant, you have no choice but to give it to them. Often it is the case that companies hand over private data to law enforcement just by being asked for it nicely, no warrant needed.
• RIMR 10mo ago
  > This makes the privacy purists angry, but in my opinion it's the reasonable default for the average computer user. Absolutely not. If my laptop tells me that it is encrypted by default, I don't like that the default is to also hold a copy of the keys in case big brother wants them. Call me a "privacy purist" all you want, but it shouldn't be normal to expect the government to have access to a key to your house.
• orthecreedence 10mo ago
  This is a great reminder: if your device doesn't ask you for a pin/passphrase every time it turns on, it's not actually encrypted.
• hshdhdhj4444 10mo ago
  > Journalists love the "Microsoft gave" framing because it makes Microsoft sound like they're handing these out because they like the cops, but that's not how it works. If your company has data that the police want and they can get a warrant, you have no choice but to give it to them. I’m not sure how you’re criticizing the “gave” framing when you’re describing and stating Microsoft literally giving the keys to the FBI.
  • parl_match 10mo ago
    Because "gave" implies a favor or a one sided exchange. It implies that Microsoft is just giving away keys for no reason! Better, and more accurate wording, would be that "Microsoft surrendered keys" or "Microsoft ceded keys". Or "Microsoft legally compelled to give the keys". If Microsoft did so without a warrant, then "gave" would be more tonally accurate. In addition, none of this is new. They've been turning over keys when legally compelled to, for many years. Fun fact: Apple does this too. https://support.apple.com/en-us/108756 https://support.apple.com/en-us/108756
    • SubmindAlpha66 10mo ago
      In fairness, the link is specifically for "Advanced Dat Protection for iCloud". This has nothing to do with local whole-disk encryption like FileVault or BitLocker. In Apple's case, even when the user enables iCloud FileVault key backup, that key is still end-to-end encrypted and Apple cannot access it. As a matter of fact, while Apple regularly receives legal warrants for access, they are ineffective because Apple has no way to fulfill that request/requirement. Microsoft has chosen to store the BitLocker key backups in a manner that maintains their (Microsoft's) access. But, this is a choice Microsoft has made its not an intrinsic requirement of a key escrow system. And in the end, it enables law enforcement to compel them to turn over these keys when a judge issues a warrant.
      • parl_match 10mo ago
        > This has nothing to do with local whole-disk encryption like FileVault or BitLocker. Wrong. When you set up a Mac laptop, it gives you the option to escrow keys. ADP disables that and ADP also prevents key escrow for iDevice backups. This is changed in Tahoe, but that's a really important callout that you need to make (and that you aren't making) > In Apple's case, even when the user enables iCloud FileVault key backup, that key is still end-to-end encrypted and Apple cannot access it. This is not true for older but relevant versions of macos. It was changed in Tahoe. With ADP enabled (which the vast majority of users do not have), this is completely incorrect. This is still factually wrong, and dangerously misleading.
• like_any_other 10mo ago
  > Journalists love the "Microsoft gave" framing because it makes Microsoft sound like they're handing these out because they like the cops, but that's not how it works. Companies know that putting themselves in a position where they can betray their users, means they will be forced to do so. Famously demonstrated when Apple had to ban the Hong Kong protest app [1]. Yet they continue to do it, don't inform their users, and in the rare occasion that they offer an alternative, it is made unclear and complicated and easy to get wrong [2]. They deserve every ounce of blame. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49919459 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49919459 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46736345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46736345
• socialcommenter 10mo ago
  Unfortunately Microsoft are working hard to get rid of local accounts, meaning the alternative here isn't much of an alternative.
• windexh8er 10mo ago
  Microsoft did give them. Just because they have a warrant doesn't mean keys should be handed over in any usable form. As indicated in the Forbes [0] article - both Meta and Apple have the exact same convenience in place (cloud backup) with none of the direct risk. So, yes. That is how it works: 1) Microsoft forces users to online accounts 2) Bitlocker keys are stored in an insecure manner allowing any US agency to ask for them. I intentionally say "ask for them" because the US government is a joke with respect to respecting its own citizens privacy [1] at this point. This type of apologetic half-truth on behalf of a multi-billion dollar corporation is getting old fast. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2026/01/22/microsoft-gave-fbi-keys-to-unlock-bitlocker-encrypted-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2026/01/22/micro... [1] https://www.npr.org/2026/01/23/nx-s1-5684185/doge-data-social-security-privacy https://www.npr.org/2026/01/23/nx-s1-5684185/doge-data-socia...
  • phendrenad2 10mo ago
    The difference is Microsoft has the keys to your front door, Apple only has an encrypted copy of your house (but no key).
• crawfordcomeaux 10mo ago
  "They have no choice" because they're "just doing their job" and "following the law." Which are both choices. Microsoft can for sure choose to block the government and so can individual workers. Let's not continue the fascism-enabling narratives of "no choice."
• oaiey 10mo ago
  As someone who has benefiter ones from this, I have to say: good. In my humble opinion: the current state is better than no encryption at all. For example: Laptop theft, scavengers trying to find pictures, etc. And if you think you are target of either Microsoft or the law enforcement manage your keys yourself or go straight to Linux.
• zaphirplane 10mo ago
  All that is true and the spin I focus on is can Microsoft have implemented it such that they have zero (ish) knowledge by default. We know iCloud has configurations that can’t disclosed, and I wonder if there is a middle ground between if you loose the recovery key you are stuffed and maybe have a recovery key unblocked by a password similar to ssh keys
• GrowingSideways 10mo ago
  [dead]
• attila-lendvai 10mo ago
  it's easy to design a system where the center doesn't have the key and thus can't be compelled. but they didn't do so. and it's surely just a coincidence, because m$ has always been such an ethical company. and it's surely not by design to centralize power by locking out competing criminals from the user's data, but not themselves. </s>
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• hdgvhicv 10mo ago
  You’re ignoring the international element. If I’m a Danish organisation then sure, the Danish government can compel me to do things. However a hostile foreign government has less control over me. As such using a tool of a hostile foreign government (Microsoft) needs to be understood and avoided.
• materialpoint 10mo ago
  The "Microsoft gave" framing is the exact right wording!, because Microsoft should never have had these keys in the first place. This is a compromise on security that sidesteps back doors on the low level and essentially transforms all Windows installations into Clipper-chip products.
• jjav 10mo ago
  > "Microsoft gave" While it is true that NSLs or other coercion tactics will force them to give out the keys, it is also true that this is only possible because Microsoft implemented a fatally flawed system where they have access to the keys. Any system where a third party has access to cleartext or the keys to decrypt to cleartext is completely broken and must not be used.