Privacy Ethics — When the Right to Be Left Alone Runs Out
Anonymous voting protects who you are. Surveillance cameras protect where you go. Data brokers record what you buy. AI infers what you believe. At every layer, a trade-off: give up some privacy to gain some safety, or hold the line and accept the risk. Privacy ethics asks where that line should fall — and who gets to draw it. The dilemmas below have no clean answers. They test what you actually value when the stakes are real.
Vote on this dilemma
A city offers to eliminate all violent crime by installing 24/7 AI surveillance on every street corner and public space.
Research background
Philosophers distinguish identity privacy (who you are) from information privacy (what you think or do). AI-driven inference increasingly collapses this distinction: anonymous datasets can be re-identified; behavioural patterns can reveal beliefs never explicitly disclosed.
- Privacy — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Privacy and Information Technology — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
SplitVote is for entertainment and aggregate insight, not a scientific test.
Related dilemmas
Governments can prevent terrorist attacks by reading everyone's private messages — but there will be zero privacy. No exceptions.
You have a deepfake video of a public figure committing a crime. You don't know whether the real event happened — only that the video itself is fake.
A politician spreads false claims that lead to harassment and violence in some communities. Should they be permanently banned from all major platforms?
You can permanently delete all social media from existence. The world becomes slower and less connected, but global mental health improves 40%.
Related topics
No account required. Your vote is anonymous.