Governments can prevent terrorist attacks by reading everyone's private messages — but there will be zero privacy. No exceptions.
0 votes worldwide
Not enough votes yet to show a result.
Vote on this dilemma
You haven't voted on this one yet — cast your choice and see how it splits.
Vote now →Read the expert analysisPolitical Philosophy
This is a maximalist version of the classic safety-vs-liberty trade: the offer is total prevention of one harm at the cost of total elimination of one freedom. Zero privacy doesn't just mean fewer attacks; it means a different relationship between every citizen and the state — one with no zone of unobserved life.
Why people split
One side treats safety as the precondition for other freedoms — if you're dead, your privacy is irrelevant. The other treats privacy as constitutive of personhood — life under permanent surveillance isn't the same kind of life, even if it's longer and safer.
Educational perspective, not professional advice.
Send via messages, stories, or copy link
Was this dilemma interesting?
⚡ Challenge a friend!
Send them the link — they'll see your result only after they vote.
More share optionsInstagram, TikTok, X, WhatsApp, Discord, Telegram, story card
📱 Share as Story
Download a 9:16 card for Instagram Stories or TikTok.
Auto-posting is not available from the web. Upload the PNG manually.
What the split says
Liberty and safety are both costs, not just benefits — every line drawn pays for the other. Once votes come in, this section will show how voters trade freedom for safety.
Worth asking yourself
- How much risk is the freedom worth?
- Is the safer option also the more honest one?