There are two fundamentally related perceptions, which are of a religious nature, about the e-state from the perspective of fundamental rights. The first hails e-state positivity by suggesting that public power draws closer to the people because this framework is providing more efficient, transparent and neutral procedures and outcomes. Here fundamental rights would therefore appear to be more safeguarded since e-solutions minimise arbitrariness. The opposite perception suggests there is obscurity and distrust despite the apparent efficiency and neutrality. Four caveats appear in relation to the image of e-state through the non-coherence theory. These are: the dominance of human rights rhetoric, questionability of the success of the e-state, the expectation of horizontality and the potential road to a police state.