[blitz_skull]

Sure, I'll agree they're closely aligned but software freedom and "user" agency (I'm guessing as opposed to general human agency?) require software to be relevant and therefore I wouldn't say they're universal human rights.

Important? To be sure. Just not "rights".

[danShumway]

I sort of see where you're coming from but I would somewhat disagree, I think that software is just an expression of device ownership and modification rights more broadly. Maybe that is kind of what you're getting at, that right to repair is a higher-level concept on top of a more universal human right? It's software-specific in the sense that software makes it harder to use those rights, but I also think I should have the freedom to take apart my toaster or to modify a shovel that I buy. But...

I don't know, I don't want to argue too much, and I don't want to give you a pedantic reply when we seem to be in agreement that privacy, agency, repair are all important and whether you or I would stick them in a specific category probably doesn't change much about that or necessarily mean that we actually disagree on anything practical related to those concepts.

I think it's bad that Apple isn't willing to fight for right to repair or user agency, but it is good that Apple is willing to fight for privacy regardless of its motivations. I don't think Apple is a universal advocate for human rights and I don't like deifying the company and I don't think its positions on privacy excuse its positions on repair or agency. But it's pretty objectively good for Apple to make a statement that it will pull these products out of the UK rather than comply, and it would be silly for anyone to say that the statement is meaningless just because Apple has bad positions on other freedoms. Apple's positions on right to repair do not make it any less good for Apple to have issued that statement about encryption.