I'm as pro-choice as the average European, and as pro-encryption as the average libertarian. But saying that those two things are the same is ludicrous and absurd.
It is pretty clear that the ability to have safer online conversations is key to exercising your ability to make intimate decisions in the modern age, so the two meanings do converge there.
Encryption is a technology; it's a tool. All tools can be broken, subverted, avoided.
Privacy is a legal right.
There are no physical walls high enough to prevent the state from entering my house if it chooses do to so; the only way to keep the state out of my house is by legal means -- ie, ironically, by regulations and more state, not less.
I'm sure law enforcement in the US has a lot of problems, but this is pure nonsense. I'm really concerned about what it's going on in the US because if an article like this makes into HN, it means the situations is as bad as it seems.
Plus even if they are pro-abortion, abortions are a rare and exceptional event, and this might make them think that encryption is "special" in the same way. But encryption is ubiquitous.
It's also pretty easy to make sure your company doesn't possess the ability to produce the data in unencrypted form anyways.
I could agree that the connection is not immediately obvious in the EU context.
However, isn't one of the strong libertarian pro-encryption arguments that encryption allows the individual to protect their liberties against the state?
and, as you are pro-choice, you believe that a woman has a right to get an abortion, i.e. this is one of her personal liberties?