> [!NOTE]- Summary of Assertion of Rights > The landmark case Bernstein v. United States set a precedent that has far-reaching implications for the use of encryption, especially concerning privileged communication. Drawing from the logic and findings of this case, this argument posits that individuals and entities have a constitutional right to use encryption for at least privileged and confidential communication, underlining the First Amendment protections. In a digital age where the boundaries between privacy and security blur, the landmark case Bernstein v. United States emerges as a beacon of clarity for the rights to encryption. This pivotal legal battle, spearheaded by a young mathematician and cryptographer named Daniel J. Bernstein, challenges the U.S. government's stringent controls on the export of cryptography software. Bernstein, then a Ph.D. student at the University of California, Berkeley, found himself at the epicenter of a constitutional showdown, asserting that software source code is a form of speech protected under the First Amendment​[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States)​. The crux of Bernstein's argument was not just about a piece of encryption software but the very essence of digital communication's freedom in the modern world. At its heart, the case questioned whether the government could impose prior restraint on cryptographic software dissemination, equating such code to arms under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). After years of legal wrangling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a groundbreaking decision, affirming that software code is indeed speech and that the government's regulations constituted an unconstitutional abridgment of Bernstein's free speech rights​[](https://www.eff.org/cases/bernstein-v-us-dept-justice)​. Bernstein v. United States did not merely vindicate a young cryptographer's fight against government overreach; it set a precedent that resonates deeply in today's debates over encryption, privacy, and security. It underlines the enduring tension between the state's security imperatives and the individual's rights to privacy and free expression in the digital domain. As we delve into the legal argument for using encryption for confidential or privileged communication, the logic and legacy of Bernstein v. United States provide a compelling foundation for understanding and advocating for these rights in the 21st century. **Arguments** 1. **First Amendment Protections** In Bernstein v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment​[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States)​. This decision underscores the principle that communication, in its many forms, is entitled to protection under the First Amendment. By extension, the use of encryption as a medium to secure communication falls under these protections. Encrypted communication, much like source code, is a method of expressing ideas and information, albeit in a secure manner. Therefore, just as source code is protected speech, so too is encrypted communication. 2. **Privacy and Confidentiality** The use of encryption for privileged communication is paramount to maintaining privacy and confidentiality, especially in professional contexts such as legal, medical, and journalistic fields. The Bernstein decision implicitly supports the notion that individuals and entities have a right to secure their communications to protect sensitive information from unauthorized access​[](https://www.eff.org/cases/bernstein-v-us-dept-justice)​. This right is crucial for upholding the confidentiality obligations inherent in these professions and for ensuring the privacy rights of all parties involved. 3. **National Security vs. Individual Rights** While national security concerns have often been cited as a reason to limit the use of encryption, the Bernstein case illustrates that individual rights to privacy and free speech cannot be overlooked. The court recognized the importance of protecting individual rights even in the face of national security arguments. Therefore, any restrictions on the use of encryption, especially for privileged communication, must carefully balance these concerns without infringing on constitutional rights​[](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-brief-history-of-u-s-encryption-policy/)​. 4. **Precedent for Legal Protection of Encryption** The ruling in Bernstein v. United States provides a legal foundation for arguing that encryption, as a tool for securing privileged communication, should be legally protected. Given that the court ruled software source code is protected speech, it follows logically that encrypted communications, which often include such code, are also protected. This precedent supports the broader argument that individuals and entities have a right to use encryption to safeguard their communications, reinforcing the legal framework for privacy and confidentiality in the digital age. **Conclusion** The principles established in Bernstein v. United States affirm the constitutional protections for encrypted communications, particularly for confidential and privileged conversations. This legal argument, rooted in the logic of the Bernstein decision, emphasizes the necessity of upholding First Amendment rights in the context of digital communication. It underscores the imperative to maintain a balance between national security interests and individual rights, advocating for the legal protection of encryption as a means to secure the confidentiality and privacy of privileged communication. - Sources - Brookings Institution. (2016, April 19). _A brief history of U.S. encryption policy_. Brookings. Retrieved from [https://www.brookings.edu](https://www.brookings.edu/) - Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). _Bernstein v. US Department of Justice_. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/cases/bernstein-v-us-department-justice - Wikipedia. (n.d.). _Bernstein v. United States_. Wikipedia. Retrieved from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States) - Wikipedia. (n.d.). _Export of cryptography from the United States_. Wikipedia. Retrieved from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States) --- Licensed under [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Updated 2024-02-21