> Needlessly tied to crypto

Let’s unpack that. By “crypto” you probably mean cryptocurrency, but let’s not forget it’s the same crypto as in cryptography. You absolutely want cryptography involved in something like this for obvious reasons.

You’ve probably also heard the term blockchain and immediately think of speculative currency futures. So throw that to the wind for a second and imagine how useful a distributed list of records linked and verifiable with cryptographic hash functions would be for this project.

Then finally, run this all in a secure and autonomous way so that under certain conditions the action of releasing the key will happen. In other words: a smart contract.

This is an absolutely perfect use of Ethereum. If you think cryptocurrencies are useless, then consider that projects like this are what give them actual real world use cases.

It’d be hard to draw any conclusion. A whistleblower must be under extreme stress and pressure which in itself in some way or other will increase the risk of death — so that has to be taken account before saying the plausible cause for the excess deaths is assassination.

Right. There's no reason to let your opponent see the cards you're holding.

That's the whole point, otherwise it's not safe against "make it look like an accident."

Assuming the instructions are in the form of: if you don't hear from me once in some time period, then release the info. If instead they are instructed to release info when they confirm my death, then you could just be made to disappear and death could never be confirmed.

I see. I guess I think of it as something that triggers automatically if you don’t reset it every day and doesn’t rely on another person. For example, a script that publishes the information if you don’t input the password every day.

And you could even use SSS (Shamir's Secret Sharing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_secret_sharing) to split the key to decrypt your confidential information across n people, such that some k (where k < n) of those people need to provide their share to get the key.

Then, for example, consider n = 5, k = 3 - if any 3 of 5 selected friends decide the trigger has been met, they can work together to decrypt the information. But a group of 2 of the 5 could not - reducing the chance of it leaking early if a key share is stolen / someone betrays or so on. It also reduces the chance of it not being released when it should, due someone refusing or being unable to act (in that case, up to 2 friends could be incapacitated, unwilling to follow the instructions, or whatever, and it could still be released).