In the digital age, the tension between safety and privacy defines one of society’s most urgent dilemmas. Total government surveillance promises security: crimes can be prevented, threats detected early, and public spaces made safer. Supporters argue that without safety, freedom is meaningless, and limited privacy is a fair trade for protection. However, constant monitoring risks abuse of power, suppression of dissent, and erosion of democracy. Privacy enables free thought and expression, shielding citizens from authoritarian control. On the other hand, complete privacy protects autonomy and civil liberties but may allow criminals to operate undetected. Law enforcement could struggle to prevent terrorism, cybercrime, or trafficking. This debate reflects a deeper question: should society prioritize collective security or individual freedom? The answer shapes our understanding of trust, rights, and the role of government in modern life.