&gt; <i>&quot;Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security.&quot;</i><p>That&#x27;s far too long and complicated for average citizens to parse and grasp implications immediately and intuitively. The second half of your question veers heavily into leading a person toward the conclusion you want them to have. Not ideal. Moreover, I think an average poll responder would get confused by the second half of the question as you&#x27;ve phrased it.<p>Perhaps try to phrase it like a simple headline or poll question that gets to the heart of the matter:<p>&quot;Should government be able to force companies to change or disable your passwords?&quot;<p>Here, I think, you have a much greater chance of grabbing the attention of the casual onlooker. Admittedly, it&#x27;s a <i>mostly</i> true statement of the core issue here, while leveraging the need to hook a reader at a glance. An article&#x2F;reporter&#x2F;anchor can dive deep into the case particulars or not, cover and present its view of what&#x27;s at stake in asking the question, include discussion of a &quot;right to security&quot; that may or may not be enjoyed by companies and individuals. But you want citizens to immediately grok what you&#x27;re asking, and be able to, on their own, extrapolate possible implications <i>that matter to them</i>. This is going to be far more powerful in getting people to invest themselves in the issue--they must be able to imagine, see, understand that what&#x27;s at stake <i>could affect them</i>.<p>The first half of the battle is this: You&#x27;ve got to get people to fucking care. And you can&#x27;t get them there if you confuse or lose them at the start.