[emphasis mine]
Believing in software is a fairly insane concept to begin with. Use logic when selecting tools, not trust, and certainly not faith or "belief".

Not agree. It's exactly "belief". Closed source is always about belief and trust. The same applyes to opensource if you can't read or  understand the code. For exemple, I can't  do it with systemd code, but at the same time I red somewhere an article with statements that systemd + Intel ME or AMD ASP is end of all security. I can not check this information but I can see that there were some flaws in systemd security which were not  corrected by red "cap". That makes me to believe that systemd is not good.

did you believe in BitLocker or in Windows?

[emphasis mine]
Believing in software is a fairly insane concept to begin with. Use logic when selecting tools, not trust, and certainly not faith or "belief".

Systemd would seem like a good candidate for such a backdoor to me, it's an essential and very complex piece of software with root privileges that runs on every Linux machine (except on the few using alternative init systems wink ) and it's predominantly developed by devs working for RH.
The kernel itself is less likely as the code is under too much scrutiny.

And the project is actually overseen and developed by a Microsofter...

The Linux kernel is probably not under enough scrutiny. It has the likes of AMD, Intel, Red Hat google and Microsoft employees committing code. It's naive to expect those can commit code to the kernel, and that some other entity / individual simply audits it... they are "trusted".  Linux is no longer the safe haven from "big tech" and that's been the case for well over a decade. The Linux Foundation website clearly shows who is running things.

Who in their right mind (and having but the most basic common sense) would entrust Microsoft (et alia) to keep their encryption keys safe?

No one with a well functioning brain

Its narcissistic for normies to think that way.

If hackers are smart, they will turn off any backdoors in their OS by any means necessary legal or illegal.

Thus, the whole aspect of prism becomes just a pointless thing to watch for dissent on innocent citizens and to detect dissent.

Honestly, I think that's the purpose of the pat-riot act and prism in general. All thus mass surveillance has nothing to do with catching crooks, its to monitor their innocent citizens to make sure they know what they are thinking so they can control dissent and/by any means needed.

The whole if you don't have anything to hide its not a problem is idiotic belief some hold.

Its destroyed the moment you tell them well then let me have all your accounts and their passwords so I can see what you are doing.

Nothing more than manipulative nonsense... honestly.

Systemd would seem like a good candidate for such a backdoor to me, it's an essential and very complex piece of software with root privileges that runs on every Linux machine (except on the few using alternative init systems ) and it's predominantly developed by devs working for RH.
The kernel itself is less likely as the code is under too much scrutiny.

You can:
A: Behave like a good little consumer sheep, use the big shiny product, accept the default configuration, and deal with the fact that you have effectively no freedom to do as you wish with your technology and your data is not even remotely yours any more.
B: Be scorned by the normies as a "hacker", and either use free software/alternative technologies or (often illegally, if US law is to be believed) modify the usual offerings to not screw you over.

Either way, this isn't really "news", and whinging about it is just shouting at clouds. Most people really don't care, they like being sheep.

Have a read ...

From Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrew … pted-data/

TL;DR

From The Register:

https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/23/ … microsoft/

TL;DR

* the epitome of understatements if anything at all 

Both articles point to a huge elephant in the room:
Who in their right mind (and having but the most basic common sense) would entrust Microsoft (et alia) to keep their encryption keys safe?
ie: available to you and to you only.

Best,

A.