New book by Dave Egged called The Circle covers this exact topic. It’s about a Google type company that slowly takes over.
This reminds me of some cultures that form rather tight-knit communities where everybody pretty much knows everybody and word spreads very fast if anybody is acting out of line. In my wife’s family culture, there is a big emphasis on “what will other people think of me” or “dont do something that will look bad/suspicious”. I think its a mixed bag.
You will have people who will be ultraconformist because they’re not going to want to draw any more omnipotent attention than they already have. Maybe they’ll find very clever ways to subvert this system to maintain some type of individuality. Then you will have other people that will be super-rebellious, reasoning that since everybody knows I’m jerking off behind the shed, why go through all the effort to hide it? I’m going to get caught anyway, but don’t want to stop, so I might as well do it in a blatant way that involves the least effort in getting what I want.
So I think you’ll still have crime and inappropriate behavior, but it will be much extreme on either end- goody-goody types that can’t understand why someone would want to do that kind of stuff would still get victimized, and sociopaths, misfits, and public masterbators would still be jerking off in their car with a piece of cheese at a stoplight 
I thought that Facebook and Twitter already did this. Or young people already voluntarily do it using Facebook and Twitter. Only typical.
If they’re in it for the money, the former. When anyone can watch any sexual encounter at any time, what’s the point?
But what counts as “truly perverted”? If we had such technology even 50 years ago, I bet homosexuality would have been considered such. I think such a society will be an incredibly repressive one, probably with intricate ironclad social rules.
I doubt that very much. It’s not at all difficult right now to find a particular person if you want to hurt them, except for a few very important or very wealthy people. It’s not at all difficult to steal money or valuables. And you currently stand a decent chance of getting away with it. In the panopticon, you’d have zero chance of getting away with it.
The number of law enforcement personnel is not a major issue. If things start to trend toward anarchy, you can deputize more people. A system like this would give incredible enforcement power to the majority, and the majority of people do not want to rape, steal, or murder.
Not really the same, but in the movie The Invention of Lying, with Ricky Gervais, nobody is capable of lying. It’s a comedy, so not that accurate, but it gives a funny example of what could happen.
As for the OP, I agree with the posters that think it will be positive. If you look at sectors where more transparency was introduced the sectors improved. Think of malpractice with doctors, justice, less nepotism in companies, etc.
-our level of happiness. Happiness is not made, rather experienced in a spectrum of other emotions. One would never know happiness if one had never experienced sadness. That’s a crude example, but our emotions are always waxing and waning through a complex system that cannot be solved. It just is that way.
50 years ago there were almost zero security cameras. Now they are everywhere. At least in public places we are much closer to the OP’s scenario than ever before. Has anyone changed their behaviour in the slightest because of this? I don’t think I have.
Police work would change. Most police would sit around reviewing videos all day and only a few would be charged with going out into the world to bring in the bad guys. Private investiagors would basically become video researchers. There would be so much information that a normal person could never review it, so there would be commercial services for all kinds of data research like for dating or employment. Each of us will be followed by our ‘permanent video record’, compiled by EQUIFAX and available for a small fee.
The first day they install a camera in my bathroom I’m going to give someone such a sight that the whole industry may be destroyed.
I really hope you’re kidding. The situation described in the OP sounds like Hell to me.
We’d all learn to poop in the dark.
IF everything is visible, it’s also visible who’s checking the recordings. I think severe social taboos against frivolously checking the recordings would rise.
To elaborate: another world might have people asking, “Imagine a world in which you could say false things to people and they would believe you. What would happen then?” Our society of truth-tellers might think that the ability to lie convincingly would lead to total social chaos and that we’d all murder each other.
Except, of course, we don’t. Just because we have the ability to lie doesn’t mean we lie all the time. Instead, we recognize that lying is sometimes beneficial, but in general it’s harmful. We set up rules both formal and informal against lying to one another under most circumstances.
Some folks break those rules, of course, some folks successfully and others unsuccessfully. But overall, given this harmful ability, we manage it.
I think something similar would happen, especially if search algorithms could be set up. The fourth amendment would be ruled not to apply to computerized algorithms set up to watch for people accessing records of other people who have an expectation of privacy.
Hmm, that’s confusing. An example:
Bob decides to spy on Jerry taking a poop. His access of those records trips an alarm down at police HQ on a machine set up to flag anyone who appears to be accessing records of someone taking a poop. The police pay Bob a visit. Bob says, “You can’t spy on me in my house!” The Supreme Court disagrees, suggesting that the fourth amendment doesn’t protect against generalized algorithms like the one that caught Bob.
I think we’d handle it.
This is a very interesting take on what might happen.
There was another book out there where the protagonist developed a drug or procedure that made the user tell the truth whenever asked. The author postulated how, after much initial resistance, everything got better and more efficient as more people began using it.
For example, in a sales transaction, the buyer would say, “the most I am willing to pay for this product is $100.” The seller would say, “the least I can profitably sell this product for is $50.” Then they’d split the difference and have the deal wrapped up in 30 seconds, both feeling they got a fair shake.
I don’t know if I buy that that’s how things would work but it was an interesting read. Sorry I can’t remember the name of the book or even enough details to search for it.
I recall a short story (not a book) “Satan’s Children” by Spider Robinson – the premise was that the drug made the user truthful, and by the time it wore off the habit of truthfulness became ingrained (it was easier to just keep rolling with it rather than re-build all the psychic walls, and the really scratchy cats were already out of the bag anyway).
There would be a lot less crime and a lot less sex.
Read George Orwell’s 1984. Cameras everywhere. The government watching you at all times.
Not pretty.
Mutant by Henry Kuttner is about that exact scenario, written in the early 50’s I believe.
This is different though. This is *everyone *being able to watch everyone. So, it’s not as one-sided as 1984.
I’d watch a lot less porn than I do now, that’s for sure.
I’d worry about intellectual property. People would see movies as they’re being made, and books as they’re being written.
Hell: Students would be able to look up the answers to every test, and rip off the straight-A student’s dedicated project. With so much video to watch, how’s the teacher to know who cheated whom?
A lot of entertainment industries would eventually collapse.