← All dilemmas
🕊️freedom
A government cyber-unit discovers a credible terrorist plot by hacking a private messaging service, but the hack also compromises the communications of millions of innocent users. Should they use the intelligence to prevent the attack?
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
Freedom dilemmas weigh personal autonomy against collective protection. Choosing “Authorize the hack to save lives, accepting the collateral intrusion on civilian privacy” prioritises the right to choose; choosing “Block the hack to protect the digital privacy rights of all citizens, even if it risks the attack” gives more weight to the duty to protect others.
Worth asking yourself
- Is the safer option also the more honest one?
- Whose freedom does this protect, and whose does it cost?
More Freedom Dilemmas
- Governments can prevent terrorist attacks by reading everyone's private messages — but there will be zero privacy. No exceptions.
- A politician spreads false claims that lead to harassment and violence in some communities. Should they be permanently banned from all major platforms?
- Vaccines are 99% effective and safe. Should they be legally mandatory for school attendance, even for parents with religious objections?
- A city offers to eliminate all violent crime by installing 24/7 AI surveillance on every street corner and public space.