I'll push back on this. I think that Right to Modify[0] is a human right. I think that software freedom and user agency (especially where it relates to vendor lock-in) is closely related to human rights, in the sense that it can directly impact people's ability to express those rights.
To say that right to repair in specific isn't a human right because the actual human right is agency/ownership/modification/whatever, is a bit like saying that encryption isn't a human right because the actual right is privacy and encryption is just a way to maintain privacy.
The end result is still that people aren't able to exercise rights. I would argue very strongly that having a degree of autonomy over the devices/objects that you own is an intrinsic right.
And if you look back at the history of Open Source software, you'll find that conversations about Libre/Free software have been regularly grounded in discussions of human rights from the start; from rights to ownership, to modification, to communication.
Sure, I'll agree they're closely aligned but software freedom and "user" agency (I'm guessing as opposed to general human agency?) require software to be relevant and therefore I wouldn't say they're universal human rights.
I sort of see where you're coming from but I would somewhat disagree, I think that software is just an expression of device ownership and modification rights more broadly. Maybe that is kind of what you're getting at, that right to repair is a higher-level concept on top of a more universal human right? It's software-specific in the sense that software makes it harder to use those rights, but I also think I should have the freedom to take apart my toaster or to modify a shovel that I buy. But...
I don't know, I don't want to argue too much, and I don't want to give you a pedantic reply when we seem to be in agreement that privacy, agency, repair are all important and whether you or I would stick them in a specific category probably doesn't change much about that or necessarily mean that we actually disagree on anything practical related to those concepts.
I think it's bad that Apple isn't willing to fight for right to repair or user agency, but it is good that Apple is willing to fight for privacy regardless of its motivations. I don't think Apple is a universal advocate for human rights and I don't like deifying the company and I don't think its positions on privacy excuse its positions on repair or agency. But it's pretty objectively good for Apple to make a statement that it will pull these products out of the UK rather than comply, and it would be silly for anyone to say that the statement is meaningless just because Apple has bad positions on other freedoms. Apple's positions on right to repair do not make it any less good for Apple to have issued that statement about encryption.
To say that right to repair in specific isn't a human right because the actual human right is agency/ownership/modification/whatever, is a bit like saying that encryption isn't a human right because the actual right is privacy and encryption is just a way to maintain privacy.
The end result is still that people aren't able to exercise rights. I would argue very strongly that having a degree of autonomy over the devices/objects that you own is an intrinsic right.
And if you look back at the history of Open Source software, you'll find that conversations about Libre/Free software have been regularly grounded in discussions of human rights from the start; from rights to ownership, to modification, to communication.
[0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-modify