[gruez]

>The alternative is the belief that humans have some fundamental rights that it's unjust for governments to violate (e.g. the right to private, encrypted communication)

In what country is there actually a "right to private, encrypted communication"? At best there's rights for "privacy", which is a pretty woolly concept, but generally don't cover copyright infringement. More to the point, unless you reject the concept of copyright entirely, you have to accept that free speech rights will have to be "violated" to enforce it.

[ejj28]

"fundamental rights" implies an ideological belief that those rights should exist for all humans, regardless of whether any country recognizes them or not.

[saurik]

One can believe that something should exist even if it does not.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

Like the right to load whatever software we want on the hardware we own. Thanks for allowing me to jailbreak my iPod back in the day.

[dingnuts]

> In what country is there actually a "right to private, encrypted communication"?

I recognize that this is not a popular opinion, but IMHO IT SHOULD BE covered by the "secure in their papers" section in the 4th Amendment in the US, and/or with established precedent regulating encryption export as armaments, by the 2nd & the Heller decision granting the rights afforded by the 2nd to the individual

at least that's the correct interpretation of the founding document as far as I can tell. not that it matters anymore.