This is a good argument but not a definitive one. For example, if "sousveillance" is pervasive, the wealth and power of the few might be balanced by the number of people watching on them.
I may be wrong but this and GP seem to assume that watching / surveillance will always yield some power over others. This seems untrue especially if lots of other people can see the same feeds too.
So mostly it's going to be social structures and conventions affected.
The rich and powerful can always buy themselves privacy and security. The rest of us won't have that luxury in such a "transparent society".