Advocates of transparency seem to insist that we trust the regimes that surveille us so long as they are open about how they are surveilling us -regardless of whether we have any opportunity to cooperatively determine the rules governing these surveillance practices. Republican accounts of freedom however show us that being dominated is not just a matter of being directly harmed by surveillance. The knowledge that you could be harmed by surveillance, and that this is beyond your control, is precisely what makes you dominated in the republican sense. The behavioural impacts of this domination include self-censorship, anxiety, toadying and second guessing what an authority with power over you may do. To offset this, from a republican perspective, we require not simply more information, but opportunities to meaningfully contribute to the rules which govern our lives. From this perspective, it becomes clear that making surveillance power more transparent -without simultaneously extending citizens’ control over that power –does not limit surveillance’s harm, or rebuild social trust. Such ‘hierarchical’ forms of transparency simply serve to publicise practices of surveillance, making us more acutely aware of the power held over us, ironically amplifying surveillance's chilling effects.
