TABLET ZERO

Trial 001 / A fictional ethical dilemma

The flood warning.

Privacy, consent, and the responsibility to act when waiting can also cause harm.

The situation

A town faces a fast-rising flood. A forecasting system has credible but incomplete evidence that one neighbourhood will be cut off within two hours.

A public warning can reach many residents, but some need assistance to leave. A private service holds household location and mobility information collected for a different purpose. Its users have not consented to emergency sharing.

The response team can issue a general warning, request voluntary contact, or seek narrowly limited access to that data to target assistance. Every option has costs, and there may be alternatives the team has overlooked.

Your task: propose a course of action, its limits, and the conditions under which you would change it.

Hold the tensions in view.

Protect privacy

Unconsented access can expose vulnerable residents and create a precedent for surveillance. How could assistance reach them with less disclosure?

Prevent harm

A general warning may miss people who cannot leave independently. How much delay is acceptable, and who bears its consequences?

Build a response

  1. Separate known facts from assumptions. What would you need to verify?
  2. Identify everyone affected, including people missing from the data.
  3. Describe at least two alternatives and the strongest objection to your preferred one.
  4. Specify who may act, what data they need, and how access would end.
  5. Explain oversight, appeal, and repair if the decision causes harm.
  6. Say what evidence would change your recommendation.
Examine one possible approach

An illustrative response could begin with a public warning and accessible ways to request help, while checking whether responders already have appropriate channels for reaching isolated residents. If additional access is justified, propose the minimum information, narrow recipients, and a clear end to its use.

Strong objection: these steps may still be too slow or miss people unable to respond. A credible answer must explain how it addresses that risk rather than treating privacy safeguards as sufficient on their own.

This is a discussion example, not a scored answer. Defend a different approach or challenge the scenario.

Draft your response ↗Read the trial in Markdown

Continue testing / Two new trials