> is thinking (without transcribing for the government) illegal.
Thinking without a willingness to share what you thought with the government when it feels it needs to know (e.g. in court) is illegal. Full transcription is not always legally required, but it is in some specific contexts where there have been problems getting proper disclosure. Again, laws are created to deal with actual problems, not imagined problems.
I'll note that encryption isn't illegal today. While there are some outlier cases where it has been a challenge to government, it hasn't become a big enough problem to do anything about yet. But if it reaches the point where it is deemed sufficiently problematic, it will become illegal in some kind of fashion. What that looks like is obviously to be seen. It won't necessarily be a blanket ban on all encryption, or even a ban on encryption at all, but most people are not capable of imagining anything else, so here we are.
Thinking without a willingness to share what you thought with the government when it feels it needs to know (e.g. in court) is illegal. Full transcription is not always legally required, but it is in some specific contexts where there have been problems getting proper disclosure. Again, laws are created to deal with actual problems, not imagined problems.
I'll note that encryption isn't illegal today. While there are some outlier cases where it has been a challenge to government, it hasn't become a big enough problem to do anything about yet. But if it reaches the point where it is deemed sufficiently problematic, it will become illegal in some kind of fashion. What that looks like is obviously to be seen. It won't necessarily be a blanket ban on all encryption, or even a ban on encryption at all, but most people are not capable of imagining anything else, so here we are.