>I don't think Microsoft cares (about anything else than making money), but there are plenty of (state) actors that can influence the decision-making at Microsoft when it comes to these issues.

Microsoft the corporation may only care about making money, but a lot of very high ranking folks within MS Security aren't just friendly to intelligence agencies, they take genuine pride in helping intelligence agencies. They're the kinds of people who saw nothing wrong or objectionable with PRISM whatsoever, they were just mad they got caught, and that the end user (who they believe had no right to even know about it) found out anyway. The kind of people who openly defend the legitimacy of the FISA court.

This aren't baseless accusations, this comes from first-hand experience interacting with and talking to several of them. Charlie Bell literally kept a CIA mug on a shelf behind him, prominently visible during Teams calls, as if to brag.

Remember - Microsoft was the very first company on the NSA's own internal slide deck depicting a timeline of PRISM collection capabilities by platform, started all the way back in 2007. All companies on that slide may have been compelled to assist with national security letters. Some were just more eager than others to betray the privacy and trust of their own customers and end-users.

I can completely believe this.

I was always convinced that Skype was bought by microsoft so CIA/US intelligence agencies to have listening capabilities.

The first thing Microsoft did after the Skype purchase was making it easier to tap into the calls by removing p2p calling and routing calls using centralized servers.

That's my experience with most computer security folks as well, and tech companies who sell security products. Cloak-and-dagger stuff running 24x7 in their heads.

It's quite possible TLAs plant employees inside important tech companies. So not only are they sympathetic, they directly work for them.