That's not clear enough. I agree that you can't have those things without private communication but not everyone does.

But why does that private communication have to be digital? Does "it would be really annoying not to have this" rise to the level of a fundamental right?

Does this right to expression apply to data at rest?

This way of approaching human rights as a set of legalistic technicalities nauseates me.

The widespread dragnet of data collection currently used is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

> "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This should be amended to include data but from a legal standpoint it should stand that information/communications that are stored/accessed locally on a personal computer fall under 'effects'.

Backdooring into your computer without prior authorization and/or the justification backed by a warrant is illegal and a violation of the rights of US citizens.

This also falls under Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...

It appears to be more about being allowed to communicate, than being allowed to do so privately.

Is there some restriction on what language in which you're allowed to communicate? Encryption is just a language.

To say I don't have a right to use encryption is to say I don't have a right to speak things that other can't understand. And I see: it's not my fault you don't understand.

If you want access to encrypted information, break the encryption. Outsmart me. Don't make it illegal for me to outsmart you.

The line of reasoning, is, IMO:

You have the right to communicate freely -> encryption is just a form of (ostensibly garbled) communication -> you have the right to use encryption freely.

Nothing in that clause says the communication must be understandable or even interpretable by all people.

You could argue that freedom to communicate covers the use of encryption. If encryption was outlawed however, it wouldn't be the right for individuals to use it that would be outlawed, it would be the right for companies to sell products with strong encryption, or to do so without backdoors. That in turn would deny many the use of crypto, but it would not deny them the freedom to communicate.

I don't think outlawing maths or outlawing companies from making an iPhone that they themselves can't break into is even remotely possible. The conclusion from that is that what we have can't really be a war on crypto, it must simply be the noise of people who realized they already lost.

As far as international rights go, but what happens if this is in conflict with federal law?