The last phrase shows an interesting problem. Can you be forced to unlock your phone if it contains something that is legally protected as secret, so unlocking your phone you would be breaking the law?.
There's a funny story that Bill Binney tells, the former technical director of the NSA who blew the whistle on the spy programs following the patriot act, about when a couple of FBI agents were sent to his house to arrest him. He wryly says "I caused a problem for them" by telling them something they weren't cleared to know. The FBI guys radioed their superiors, and then were immediately ordered to get away from Binney
(Note that I’m speaking broadly when I say “right,” in the sense that these are human rights that should be universally respected. The UK certainly doesn’t seem to respect the right against self-incrimination, given that it charges people with a crime for not allowing a border agent to rifle through their phone.)
You're describing a violation of privacy, possibly privilege, not self-incrimination doctrine. Self incrimination relates to compelled speech [1].
No? If we do that we render the term meaningless as any incriminating evidence could be termed self-incrimination.
Self-incrimination is about speech. Violations of privilege are not self incriminating. Neither is murder. Both are bad. But just because something is bad doesn't make it every specific type of bad.
Seriously? So,what, mutes can’t incriminate themselves?
Even if you wanna stick to that shaky narrative, consider that text messages are speech. Notes to myself are speech. Pictures in my phone are a form of my self-expression—which is speech. Emails? Speech. Voice recordings? Speech. My ChatGPT history? Speech. My Siri interactions? Speech.
The concept of protection against self-incrimination is deeply rooted in protecting our privacy; I don’t see how they can be separated like you seem to have suggesting here.
Yes. If an officer tells you to admit guilt in a text message, that’s self incrimination. If they find an incriminating text, that’s just incrimination. It may also be an illegal search. But that’s orthogonal. (The closest they come to each other is in entrapment.)
That’s why evidence is seized as a result of a warrant that cannot just be a “fishing expedition.” “We suspect you commit a crime but have no specific evidence or knowledge of specific evidence, let us search for anything that might be evidence” doesn’t fly under such a theory. And a search warrant doesn’t compel the subject to disclose hiding places etc. either (though it probably can compel one to disclose hazards like traps, for safety in the moment).
No, you have to cooperate with subpoenas. Protections against self incrimination are much more narrow. Legally and historically.