Comparing Microsoft and Apple encryption and data privacy approaches

Online discussions are buzzing with news that Microsoft provided FBI with BitLocker keys to access data on three laptops, contrasting this with Apple's hardline stance against U.S. intelligence agencies. However, this comparison seems superficial, missing a crucial difference in how these companies handle encryption and user data access.

The Apple story began after the 2015 San Bernardino tragedy, when FBI demanded the company help hack one perpetrator's iPhone. Apple refused, arguing this would weaken Secure Enclave protection and endanger all iPhone security. Ultimately, authorities found an alternative access method, and Apple's position became a symbol of principled privacy defense.

The Microsoft situation differs. The company did provide BitLocker keys, but only because the laptop users themselves had previously stored key copies in Microsoft's cloud. This approach uses less stringent encryption, designed to help owners recover device access if they lose passwords. With a court order, Microsoft is legally required to provide such data.

Importantly, Windows users can opt out of storing BitLocker keys in the cloud, completely eliminating company or government access. Apple long followed similar logic: some iCloud data was encrypted in ways allowing company compliance with law enforcement requests, until it gradually implemented end-to-end encryption.

Today, Apple offers Advanced Data Protection for maximum iCloud security, but it's not enabled by default precisely because it removes Apple's ability to assist users in emergencies. Ultimately, both Apple and Microsoft leave the final choice to users: convenience and recovery options versus maximum privacy without intermediaries.