It would be a better world if it included telepathy. People would be able to EXPERIENCE the suffering of the poor and middle class. And the lack of suffering of the rich. I suspect the rich would move to ameliorate the suffering of the poor just out of simple self-defense. Oh, and any wealthy conservatives or libertarians who tried any of this “lucky ducks” shit would drowned in a wall of experience.
Hmm, that might be the case if it was compulsory telepathy; I rather doubt that many people would deliberately subject themselves to experiencing the suffering of others.
But compulsory telepathy would be a terrible, terrible thing. For starters, everyone within a given radius around a car accident would be too busy screaming in agony to be able to help. Doctors would be literally incapable of doing their jobs.
Presumably there’d no longer be such a thing as intellectual property or it would be rigidly enforced. After all, everyone can see that you’re watching the movie being made, and society could choose to charge you for that privilege.
But, again, everyone can see that they’re doing so, so enforcement is easy if that’s something that you want to protect.
Timestamps? The teacher doesn’t need to watch it all. The wronged student will gladly do that research.
In this scenario, it’s a brain implant. Merely thinking it is something the other party could find out. You might as well just say whatever you are thinking 
The interesting thing is that this may not be true. Some psych theories say that people “normalize” their experiences. It would be fascinating to find out if this were true.
You might watch a few hours of the “life and times of Billy the bum”, experiencing the incredible joy he gets when he manages to get a shower or find a whole bunch of spare change.
You might find that relatively speaking, the life of “Richey Rich” is no better. Maybe the wine served at dinner is a sour vintage, and the only model he can find to sleep with is a low class softcore porn model. Maybe Richy is out of blow, and is getting terrible withdraw symptoms. I’m just saying : it might not be as clear cut a difference as you would expect.
There could still be… I guess you’d call them societal standards of propriety that make it ok to think something but not ok to say it.
Privacy is very much a social construct. There are all kinds of situations where you observe something (or could) but pretend you don’t (or choose not to). In the locker room, it’s no big deal to see other naked people, but it’s quite rude to stare or comment.
It could end up that society decides that peoples’ thoughts are generally private, and, aside from a few weirdos and criminals (and certain special circumstances like therapy or criminal trials), people would no more look through your record of thoughts than they would interrogate you about your last bowel movement.
I’m pretty sure that the “dystopian future” where everything you do is on camera, is already here.
You haven’t heard of the Infrared John-Cam, I see.
I think this will come to pass in the medium to long term future, thanks to ubiquitous surveillance and advanced artificial intelligence. A sufficiently competent AI could observe any particular human in sufficient detail to register the physiological changes associated with various internal states, and deduce their thought processes. Not only will our everyday actions be observed and recorded, but also our internal states will be monitored and extrapolated.
The science fiction author David Brin has written about the prospect of a so-called ‘Transparent Society’, where all our activities are watched as a matter of routine; he suggests that this can have a positive effect, if the public can also observe those in power and make sure that they do their job honestly and fairly. This ‘surveillance from underneath’ is sometimes called ‘sousveillance’.
More on the Transparent Society here
More on sousveillance here
The idea in the OP in this thread certainly seems to include the possibility of ‘sousveillance’ as well as surveillance; if we all know how everyone is behaving at all levels of society, then despotism as well as petty crime would both be much more difficult.
Perhaps the most relevant passage is here;