How safe is it to use Microsoft's co-pilot when it comes to my privavcy and security?
Executive summary
Microsoft’s Copilot offers enterprise-grade controls, encryption, and promises not to use tenant data to train foundation models unless customers opt in, which helps reduce some privacy risk for businesses [1] [2]. However, real-world risk comes from over-permissioning, feature defaults (like earlier “Recall”), and ambiguous human-review/retention policies — problems that mean Copilot is secure in design but requires careful configuration and governance to be safe in practice [3] [4] [5].
1. What Microsoft says: contractual and technical safeguards
Microsoft presents Copilot as operating inside enterprise boundaries with encryption in transit and at rest, tenant isolation, GDPR and EU Data Boundary commitments, and statements that prompts/responses aren’t used to train foundation LLMs unless a tenant opts in — framing Copilot as a controllable enterprise service rather than a free-for-all data sink [1] [6] [7].
2. The practical limits: over-permissioning and oversharing within organizations
Independent security vendors and analysts warn that the biggest operational hazard is not a mysterious Microsoft backdoor but existing identity and permission errors: Copilot can access files and mail a user can reach, so poorly scoped permissions or oversharing raise exposure risk — Metomic and Concentric highlight that a meaningful share of business-critical files are vulnerable to misconfiguration and that “over-permissioning” is a primary concern [4] [3].
3. Feature design and defaults matter: recall, storage and human review
Recent product changes show features and defaults change risk posture — Microsoft moved its Recall screenshot feature to opt-in after backlash, and its privacy FAQ notes uploaded files may be stored up to 18 months and limited human review can occur in investigations, signaling retention and human-review processes that require administrator attention and policy decisions [3] [5] [8].
4. Where data flows and what is/isn’t used for training
Microsoft documents that Copilot web grounding uses Bing and that web queries are sent securely with identifiers removed, while Copilot Chat is grounded in web data not tenant content; Microsoft repeatedly asserts it does not use tenant prompts/data to train its foundation models unless a customer has explicitly consented, which addresses one major training-data fear — but that assurance is contractual and operational, not an absolute technical impossibility presented in these documents [9] [1] [2].
5. Enterprise controls and admin responsibilities
Administrators can disable feedback collection for tenants and toggle data-sharing for specific Copilot features, and tools like Microsoft Purview, DLP, and Insider Risk Management are intended to integrate with Copilot to enforce policy — meaning safety depends strongly on how organizations configure those controls and how security teams account for AI in data governance [10] [1] [8].
6. Residual risks and real-world governance gaps
Even with Microsoft’s protections, observers and vendors underscore unresolved issues: inconsistent messaging and rebrand confusion can hide policy tradeoffs [11], third-party research found potential cloud-exposure scenarios tied to Copilot Studio, and industry surveys show widespread CISO concern about AI exposing sensitive information — all suggesting the technical promises need accompanying audits, DSPM processes, and strict least-privilege practices to be effective [3] [4] [12].
7. Bottom line — how safe is it?
For organizations that treat Copilot as another enterprise application, apply zero-trust principles, enforce least privilege, configure retention/review settings, and integrate Copilot into DLP and audit workflows, the service can be acceptably safe because of Microsoft’s contractual safeguards and built-in protections [1] [10] [9]. For organizations that leave default settings, ignore permission hygiene, or fail to decide on opt-ins for data sharing, Copilot materially increases the chance that sensitive data will be exposed or retained longer than intended [3] [4] [5].