Today, total surveillance stratagems are no longer merely figments of our imagination. Yet, the threat and discomfort emanating from contemporary surveillance regimes may lead us, increasingly so, to turn to literature, film, and art as sources for understanding and possibly resisting it in a productive way. Global surveillance is a reality established by the technology that put it into place and without which we can no longer function: neither in the professional world, nor in our private lives—if one can still draw a strict distinction between public and private. Both the erosion and the defence of privacy, autonomy, and democratic values are the cornerstones of contemporary surveillance critique. By accepting the need for security as the legitimizing argument for surveillance, it seems that democratic societies have fallen into a state of regarding the protection of individual freedom, autonomy, and agency at a time when vigilance is of the essence. A certain impassiveness, targeted by the contributors of this special issue and by surveillance critics at large, is reinforced by the idea that compromise is a small price to pay for security and the freedom to roam, to access information, and to be part of the global community. However, what is lacking here is an awareness of the irony contained in the unreflective acceptance of surveillance measures, namely that, because of our dependence on technology, we are only “free” to the extent to which we conform. It is against this bad bargain that surveillance critique addresses itself, often invoking Benjamin Franklin’s famous dictum that a people ready to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security doesn’t deserve either and ends up losing both.