>No one's ever tested this approach in court, and I can't say whether a judge would be able to distinguish between "not revealing a secret order" and "failing t

>No one's ever tested this approach in court, and I can't say whether a judge would be able to distinguish between "not revealing a secret order" and "failing to note the absence of a secret order", but in US jurisprudence, compelling someone to speak a lie is generally more fraught with constitutional issues than compelled silence about the truth. This is the worrying part. The dead man's switch conforms to a sort of twisted logic that should stand up, but I can't see a judge agreeing with you. Anyway, if it ever worked one time, I'm sure a law would be promptly implemented that prevented you from saying when the FBI/NSA hasn't been there.