So according to you, if people can still communicate secretly by meeting in person and whispering in a forest or such, then it's no impairment of their rights to destroy their ability to do the equivalent with electronics.
Kinda like Bush's "free speech zones", where protesters are kept in a little cage far from the public to whom they would like to express their opinions - as long as they're free to speak in this one little place, they're not totally silenced and there is no invasion of their rights, according to the clever lawyers.
The right of communicating confidentially with persons of one's choice, and not with others, is a robust right which is not to be reduced to a formality.
The fascist mentality is strong in the US right now, but citizens are going to work around the police state until it's reformed or overthrown, and they are on the right side of history.
Not equivalent. It's at least possible to tail someone to the forest (private house, etc.) and surveil them, with proper judicial oversight. Not so with systems designed to defeat lawful intercept.
There is no "robust right" to defeat lawful intercept. The right to privacy has always been subject to a body of law governing lawful surveillance and policework. Example: mobsters meeting in a private home can be bugged with a warrant.
Kinda like Bush's "free speech zones", where protesters are kept in a little cage far from the public to whom they would like to express their opinions - as long as they're free to speak in this one little place, they're not totally silenced and there is no invasion of their rights, according to the clever lawyers.
The right of communicating confidentially with persons of one's choice, and not with others, is a robust right which is not to be reduced to a formality.
The fascist mentality is strong in the US right now, but citizens are going to work around the police state until it's reformed or overthrown, and they are on the right side of history.