The 'I have nothing to hide' argument is deeply flawed, primarily due to the fact that many people accused of committing a crime (due to surveillance in this case) are actually innocent. Not all police officers are bad people, however the police system itself is corrupt in many areas, for example how people are often wrongly accused of criminal activity, such as the huge problem of racial profiling. Racial profiling has been happening for centuries, and it came into the light of mainstream media again last summer, following the murder of George Floyd. The frightening statistics reveal how big of a problem racial profiling is, for example how At least ‘70 police departments in the United States arrest Black people/African-Americans at 10 times the rate they arrest people who are not black’ [1]. Surveillance plays a huge part in racist accusations, therefore, it is wrong to say that surveillance only hurts wrongdoers while people are being racially profiled and even losing their lives over crimes they did not commit. In addition to problems such as racial profiling, there is also the issue of actual criminals getting away with crimes despite surveillance, for example CCTV evidence getting ‘lost’ if it was a wealthy criminal in a position powerful enough to cover their tracks. So, in some cases, wrongdoers who know they can get away with crime due to their social standing, are not even worried about surveillance. There is also a major fault in the ‘I have nothing to hide’ when thinking about surveillance argument, as addressed by Moxie Marlinspike, who gave the example of Orwellian-style surveillance in her article, stating: > Police already abuse the immense power they have, but if everyone’s every action were being monitored, and everyone technically violates some obscure law at some time, then punishment becomes purely selective. Those in power will essentially have what they need to punish anyone they’d like, whenever they choose, as if there were no rules at all. [2] [1] Louise Gaille in *Vittana*, March 22, 2017, [https://vittana.org/24-frightening-racial-profiling-statistics] [2] Moxie Marlinspike in *Wired*, June 13, 2013 [https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/]

**Better surveillance technology improves the ease with which we can observe and and peer into the lives of other individuals, but while this technology can be used to identify the guilty, it can also be purposed by the guilty to prey on the public. Both victims and the general innocent could have reason to worry.** Meg_Stalham already, and quite articulately, presented how the use of official surveillance can be subject to the biases of the officials, justifying concern on the part of the innocent along with the guilty [https://www.parlia.com/comment/mKqZrpDXprqDMPPqHpgszVDql] . Another source of concern, however, arises from the very existence of this technology. If this technology exists for official use, it also exists for potential acquisition by those with criminal intent. This technology can be - and has been - hacked. - Police body-cam footage can be doctored, leaving minimal evidence that any tampering occurred. The innocent could be framed, while victims could be left without justice as perpetrators of the crime cover their tracks [https://www.wired.com/story/police-body-camera-vulnerabilities/]. - As recent as March 2021, there have been reports of surveillance equipment being tapped into [https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/surveillance-camera-hack-raises-legal-risk-of-digital-device-use], including official systems [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/attack-on-dc-police-security-cameras-had-broad-implications/2018/07/24/7ff01d78-8440-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html]. It seems plausible that government and policing surveillance can be exploited. Additionally, just as the electronic age makes _official_ surveillance easier, its existence implies the ease of _unofficial_ surveillance. Beyond hacking, criminals and criminal organisations can also gain direct access to improved technology, and we may have reason to worry as to their increased ability to track and visualise targeted individuals or locations.

**We should all be worried about the way in which we are surveilled, however that does not invalidate the process of surveillance** - Surveillance is very important in the hunt for terrorists, cybercriminals and hackers. However, it depends on the way in which we are watched and how this data is used. - Taking the [Cambridge Analytica Scandal](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html) as an example, that was a seemingly innocent questionnaire about their online habits, but the app was allowed to access far more information than deemed necessary and was used to target voters. Political infiltration and intervening with the democratic process on that scale can be extremely detrimental. - The discussion surrounding [potential ID verification](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/twitter-social-media-england-italy-jadon-sancho-b945328.html) for social media can also be extremely dangerous, especially with regards to free speech. Social media is a platform where we should be free to express what we want without it being linked back to us/surveilled by the government.