I think he is implying these are the two tactics police used to obtain evidence; the old style is active coercion (which is illegal but fairly common in police arrests and interrogation), the new style is querying phone, email, device records, decrypting harddrives (is now potentially legal).
It's more akin to breaking into a safe you carry on your person, not bludgeoning you into speaking. Bad connection.
By 'coercion', I don't think he meant "bludgeoning". When the police tell you that you've already been identified by a witness, when it is a complete lie, I take that to be coercion. Or when they inflict emotional turmoil by arresting you publicly, handcuffing you in public, running your prints in a police station, and treat the innocent as guilty in order to 'coerce' them into an unstable state of mind. Coercion is inflicting duress, which doesn't have to be similar to physical torture, imo.
"tell us every crime you have ever committed" is a question you can plead the 5th on in court. But the phone will one day make it unnecessary to ask the person, all you need is the brain's loyal assistant. I personally don't care about human rights so everything is fine here.
Coercion is illegal? I've seen coercion used in every police investigation I've ever seen. It's so common I had no idea anyone thought it was illegal. Police isolate and begin lying to suspects immediately after they're identified.