Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not braindead simple 5th amendment stuff. Among the unsettled the questions in this case: (1) is providing a decryption key a testimonial act? (2) are the contents of the drives would constitute testimony protected by the 5th Amendment? Courts have come to different conclusions on both questions. Experts disagree on both questions. Even the precursor question (is requiring a defendant to provide the combinati…
(1) is obviously true. Nobody can dispute this in good faith, even if the jurisprudence is hard to settle among bad actors. Prosecutors are simply upset technology makes the 5th powerful. (2) is obviously false. You can't get to it without testimony, though, so too bad. This is the intention of the 5th. The court avoided the 5th Amendment issues because, again, the courts are a joke.
(2) is not obviously false, because you're conflating two separate things: the encryption key and the contents of the encrypted device. Using the analogy of a locked safe: a picture taken by the defendant, for example, would be testimonial, but a picture taken by a third party would not. There's no way to know without actually reviewing the contents.
If you have a simplistic understanding of the law, it's easy to make black and white statements. But the law is not deterministic code, and has never worked that way.