This is the part that interests me. I always thought that the primary reason that Canada and the US has protections against self-incrimination was not some mora

This is the part that interests me. I always thought that the primary reason that Canada and the US has protections against self-incrimination was not some moral stance but because it is effectively impossible to prove that someone can incriminate themselves. With our current technology "I can't remember" is basically impossible to disprove. IIUC The way this works in the UK and is being proposed here for Ireland is guilty until proven innocent. You need to prove that you don't know something, which is equally impossible. Of course court rarely "proves" things. It is more aimed at "beyond a reasonable doubt" which does allow some chance for proving both ways. But I don't think that makes much difference to the fundamental issue. This point of view also cleanly solves the "unlock the phone" debate. They can't make you type your password because they can't prove that you know the password, but they can make you touch the fingerprint reader because whether or not your fingerprint unlocks the phone is something that can be tested. Of course the question of morality is important. Especially as we are sprinting towards a future where we have more and more visibility into people's brains. It would be nice to answer this question, and with the current direction that governments are moving it seems like the answer is going to be that accessing a suspect's mind is acceptable, which I have very mixed feelings about.