This isn't facetious. We do not yet know which of Impagliazzo's Five Worlds [0] we inhabit. Currently, the best guess is that we live in Cryptomania, but we haven't proven it. Since we would have to live in Cryptomania for your proposal to carry any reasonable weight, we should probably postpone any talk of adding to the list of human rights.
On the other hand, the ability to multiply numbers, while perhaps not a right, is something that the government should probably not bother trying to criminalize.
I don't see why that's an issue. People have a basic human right to life even though it's theoretically impossible to ensure that outcome. The OP's argument is about reframing the conversation to avoid pointless debate with people who might have the right desire to help people, but don't understand why their fantasies about how to achieve it aren't reasonable. Reframing the debate makes it easy to focus on proper measures.
One-time pads are unbreakable, so unbreakable cryptography exists. Impagliazzo's Five Worlds are only about public key cryptography. If public key cryptography didn't exist, we'd still be arguing about private key cryptography.
I think you're reacting to the wrong issue -- a minor and perhaps unwise choice of words: substitute "strong" for "unbreakable" and the point remains -- aren't we better off by standing up for what ought to be a human right -- strong encryption -- instead of knuckling under to implementing backdoored encryption that governments have long wanted cryptographers to implement?
This isn't facetious. We do not yet know which of Impagliazzo's Five Worlds [0] we inhabit. Currently, the best guess is that we live in Cryptomania, but we haven't proven it. Since we would have to live in Cryptomania for your proposal to carry any reasonable weight, we should probably postpone any talk of adding to the list of human rights.
On the other hand, the ability to multiply numbers, while perhaps not a right, is something that the government should probably not bother trying to criminalize.
[0] http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2004/06/impagliazzos...