[eschaton]

I hate to defend such a despicable human being, but it’s a legitimate point: Not only does he have a right not to self-incriminate, he also has a right to hide his defense strategy against the crimes with which the state has charged him from the state.

(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.)

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination

[eschaton]

I think it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it’s reasonable to argue that compelling speech that results in access to otherwise-private information that may be incriminating is _also_ a (potential) violation of self-incrimination

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.

[eschaton]

The right against self-incrimination is about more than speech. The philosophical underpinning is that a person has the right not to be compelled to aid in their own prosecution.

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).

[JumpCrisscross]

> philosophical underpinning is that a person has the right not to be compelled to aid in their own prosecution

No, you have to cooperate with subpoenas. Protections against self incrimination are much more narrow. Legally and historically.

[tharant]

> Self-incrimination is about speech.

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> text messages are speech

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.)