That's true. Nothing is guaranteed. That's actually what I'm trying to say, too. Normally, 5A covers passwords. But it didn't in this case, because somehow the court was able to decide that this hard drive undeniably has CP on it.

So, it's not incriminating yourself to decrypt something everyone already knows you have. That's kinda weird and concerning, depending on how they proved the hard drive's contents without decrypting it. I mean, if it's just someone saying "I saw it on his computer" then that's problematic in my opinion. Whereas if they have server logs, or logs from a different hard drive of his detailing the contents of the encrypted drive, or something more concrete than hearsay, I don't see an issue.

Edit: I guess the issue is: why do they need the contents of the drive if they can already prove the contents of the drive enough to convict?