We all agree that we shouldn't be compelled to testify against ourselves. Right?
Ok... now let's think of Geordi La Forge.
Were he to commit a crime, could the government compel him to produce encrypted recordings from his visor?
And hopefully you'll come to the conclusion, "No, because that visor is part of him. He shouldn't have to give up his sight just to maintain his ability not to testify against himself."
And from there it's just a few steps towards, "Yes, I do need my cell phone to be a productive human... and yes, tech I need to be a productive human should be covered under the same protections as I am."
Plenty of other ways for cops to catch the bad guys.
Well, I assert that encryption is a type of arms, and that it's the right of every free man (so, children/prisoners/&c. are excepted) to own, bear & use arms peaceably.
In the U.S., one can make an argument that the Second Amendment protects the right to encryption.
But even if no constitution or law in the world protects a right, it's still a right — just a right without legal recognition.
> Well, I assert that encryption is a type of arms
I wouldn't. Arms helps you kill or hurt people. Encryption hides information. Both functions can be used as a means to protect yourself, but its really a stretch to compare arms and encryption. Da-Vinci's mirror writings were as comparable to a rapier than AES-CGM is comparable to a hand gun. That is, not at all in my opinion.
As a citizen, I would argue that the right for encryption is closest to freedom of thought. My private thoughts don't have to be confined to my brain, I should have the right to memory prosthetics (I mean a computer) as well.
(Edit: of course, the decision to classify encryption as munition was ridiculous. How it combines with the second amendment (which I happen to mostly disagree with), is just a fortunate coincidence.)
A key part of true "rights" is the ability to do it anyway: you may be subsequently punished by an oppressive state, but you don't need compelled assistance nor permission to do it.
One can speak, publish, make weapons, be quiet, associate, ... and encrypt, all without asking or compelling others first.
Rights are natural, existing without someone else saying so.
I agree with the principal that encryption should be a human right, and I agree that I can construct thought experiments that "prove", or more correctly, show sound reasoning for, the principal. However, nation-states do not run off of principals. They run off of enough people agreeing on something that they get to decide what is right.
We all agree that we shouldn't be compelled to testify against ourselves. Right?
Ok... now let's think of Geordi La Forge.
Were he to commit a crime, could the government compel him to produce encrypted recordings from his visor?
And hopefully you'll come to the conclusion, "No, because that visor is part of him. He shouldn't have to give up his sight just to maintain his ability not to testify against himself."
And from there it's just a few steps towards, "Yes, I do need my cell phone to be a productive human... and yes, tech I need to be a productive human should be covered under the same protections as I am."
Plenty of other ways for cops to catch the bad guys.