But if Microsoft really was selling private repo content to OpenAI, it probably wouldn't go through those access controls. It'd be an executive-level decision with enough force to plow through all the red tape, and it'd be implemented as a data pipeline or similar automated process that wouldn't trigger the same kind of notification as, like, a Trust and Safety employee taking manual action.
Probably the better evidence here is in GitHub's ToS where they say in pretty strong/binding terms that they aren't doing this: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... . If they are secretly selling your data to OpenAI they haven't left themselves a ton of wiggle room if people ever found out.
(Probably the biggest loophole they could use is to send private repo content to an OpenAI service for scanning/safety purposes. The ToS allows this and they're almost certainly doing it with other services like PhotoDNA. Then OpenAI can just violate whatever agreement they have not to store the data sent to that service.)
Current talk of the town in the data retention space is around AI safety. There’s been a recent slew of blog posts and academic papers around how LLM harms can manifest over multiple agentic turns, from individually innocuous requests. Identifying this inherently necessitates user data retention which we do everything possible to avoid (not even meaning data sharing as is alluded to in this thread, I mean literally persisting prompts and completions anywhere outside of ephemeral memory). I’ve been the one advocating for having the storage of any data retained for safety and security purposes to be as heavily access controlled and audited as is possible.
Also, if AI safety is a space that is interesting to you, we’re hiring! Manager, developer, and applied science roles, or we can figure out the HR shenanigans if you don’t fit any of those archetypes. If interested shoot me an email at taywrobel@github.com!
As of 11 days ago our vision support is GA (https://github.blog/changelog/2026-07-01-copilot-vision-is-g...) and let’s just say the technical implementation wasn’t the long pull there. Figuring out the what and how of responsible data handling around what I hope is agreeably harmful use was… quite a journey.
Microsoft can certainly request that we perform actions against repositories, as can governments, customers, random people on the street, etc. Whether action is taken in those cases is a question for lawyers to fight over, but we have the engineering guardrails in place to require it to be an intentional, audited action.
I appreciate the spicy question tho, even if misguided!
This is not spicy, this is basic infosec.
And since you presumably knew that already (as it is basic infosec) then yes it is spicy, or simply antagonistic.
To the best of my knowledge I know about every ongoing company AI safety and user privacy initiative, and none of them involve permitting access to copilot user content to any second party or third party entity.
Of course, that’s tautological. I don’t know what I don’t know, but I’m senior enough and with broad enough scope that I’m at least read in on what I believe is the majority of high level business initiatives.
I’m not trying to be evasive, this is just the reality of any organization - I only know what I know. Everything within my scope of awareness indicates that there is no copilot user content access outside of our publicly published terms of service.
I personally did get the vibe that you were being evasive, just because the things you were saying didn't quite match what people were asking about, in a way that felt kind of like a corporate legally-not-a-denial denial. It's like, "Hey, has Contoso Apartments hidden a camera in my bathroom?" "Contoso Apartments is committed to your privacy and safety. We have strict controls in place to ensure that our maintenance staff cannot make a copy of your key without notifying you. To the best of my knowledge, we do not have any company initiative that involves opening envelopes addressed to you." Like it's theoretically reassuring for the company to commit to those things, but the fact that they can't directly answer the original question is disconcerting.
Ultimately there's probably not a whole lot you can do about this. Like realistically if Microsoft is doing this, they've probably constructed it in a way where not many people know and/or they can plausibly deny it. So it comes down to (a) Microsoft denies doing it, but isn't making the broadest legally binding commitment possible, (b) does the reader believe Microsoft and OpenAI are trustworthy with respect to privacy and intellectual property issues or not.
I've been in this kind of situation before, and it can be frustrating when people don't believe that you're in a good, isolated department of the company and you're committed to upholding ethical standards. I guess that's why big companies pay the big bucks :)
Copilot has a lot of different clients between IDEs, agentic integrations, and GitHub apps. I don’t have awareness of the implementation details of all of them, but I can assure you that we don’t provide APIs like those mentioned in the article being used for data exfiltration.
Clients are responsible for context building, and all go through the same service that does auth, policy and quota enforcement, request routing to the underlying providers all of which have zero data retention enabled unless very specifically excluded from that (looking at you, Fable 5).
If anyone answered that question affirmatively, I'd lose a massive amount of trust in them. It would betray they fundamentally misunderstand the stochastic nature of playing defense.
Prove that I work at GitHub? Username + LinkedIn can show (not prove) that easily.
Prove that we have an entitlements system which regulates and audits access? I could point you to https://github.com/entitlements, but it’s all private repositories so that won’t prove much either.
Prove that there are no OpenAI employees with access to GitHub systems? Not sure how I’d do that without dumping (what you would still need to trust me is) the entirety of our org chart/HR system, which I’m not willing to do because I do enjoy being employed and am not exactly obfuscating my identity here.
Prove that HN has a strong anti-Microsoft bias? Well that one is pretty easy actually, you’re helping prove it yourself!
Let’s be real, we now live in a post-truth world. Nothing can truly be proven or disproven outside of formal logic and mathematics. You can either believe what I’m saying as good faith insider knowledge sharing (which is unfortunately rare nowadays) or you can not. Makes no difference to me.