The Miranda speech still has to be administered. That has not changed. Nor has the ability to exercise your 5th Amendment rights. If you are charged with a crime, you do what every self-defense instructor and lawyer tells us to do: clam up and demand a lawyer before answering any questions.That's not what the first sentence of the article says. The interrogator doesn't have to tell the suspect anything it looks like.
I note with some irony that in 1966, conservatives thought that Miranda would effectively destroy the ability of the police to prosecute crimes. That didn't turn out to be the case.
(Miranda and his other accomplices were all convicted through an abundance of evidence and witness testimony.)
The Miranda warning has become an integral part of our culture. For what was a very controversial decision at the time, it is now considered to be an unassailable safeguard of our rights.
If the Court was dismantling that in any way, it would be front page news in every newspaper, every day. Politicians and the press would be screaming bloody murder.
Are they doing that? No. Because what the article says is simply wrong. It happens.