"Defendant could have established such a personal privacy
interest by submitting a sworn statement that could not
be offered against him at trial as evidence of his guilt
(though it could be used to impeach him should he take the
witness stand)"
So it's not as Kafkaesc as the title makes it sound---he could have said it's his without incriminating himself---but it's still pretty kafkaesc in that it would have effectively prevented him from testifying.
He wanted the ability to claim 4th amendment protections on his server while simultaneously denying that it was his server. For the government to tell him he can't have it both ways in fact seems almost the opposite of Kafkaesque
