I am starting to think similarly. I am not bothered by lack of privacy nearly as much as I am about one-sided surveillance.

It's a thorny problem.

While having everything be open would probably reduce double standards along the "government and people with influence" vs "non-government and people without influence" lines I am not sure it would be a net positive, or at least not enough to prefer an open approach to dragnet systems over not having them in the first place.

I would be very worried about "tyranny of the majority" type situation where a (large and or powerful enough) local majority uses the system to the detriment of some local (small enough or powerless enough) minority either under color of law or with a blind eye and/or tacit approval from the local powers that be. With a large enough majority vs a small enough minority government's hands may effectively be tied when it comes to preventing abuse and intervention from next higher level up level of government is not always forthcoming. We've all seen the way online communities engage in witch hunts. If the past is any example I don't think we can trust municipalities in possession of dragnets to not do the same if the contents of those dragnets are open to the public.

I think we can all agree that gay bar patrons in rural Alabama and gun shop patrons in urban Massachusetts, to name a couple examples, might not do too well under an "all the location data the local government has out in the open" type of surveillance scheme.

Privacy as a constraint on government action, yes. Aren't all constraints on government action essentially concerned with addressing the power imbalance?

But privacy itself is also a claim against your neighbor: not only is it illegal for them to blackmail you, it is impermissible to obtain the grounds for that blackmail.

I'm perhaps more afraid of my neighbor than I am the government. Rapists are more often people you know, and all that.

I'd wager that there's vanishingly few people who don't have some thing they do, some demographic they belong to, some association with something, that some vocal minority would crucify them over while the apathetic majority stand idly by. The government can't always protect you from this kind of threat. Being a subject of controversy is not a protected class, your employer can fire you (in most states), people can refuse to do business with you, etc. etc for no reason other than because they don't want to be involved. As we've seen with online witch hunts, people's lives can be ruined, or at least set back years or decades by controversy that stems from private information getting into the wrong hands.

Urban areas have privacy by blending into the crowd. Rural areas have privacy by density, there simply aren't enough people to observe everything. Technology is making both those obsolete.

>people's lives can be ruined, or at least set back years or decades by controversy that stems from private information getting into the wrong hands

Private information "getting into the wrong hands" often seems to be an issue of misplaced confidence in the confidentiality of that information. In an era where "surveillance is democratized," how we think about the existence of "private information" might radically change. In your example, the words, actions, and ideas that would have generated controversy might not have ever been spoken or acted upon in the first place, or there would be such an apparent abundance that the "controversy" wouldn't hold ground. More of a fringe position here, but maybe certain ideas and actions wouldn't even be conceived of in a post-privacy world, as the result of the loss of an expectation that those ideas or actions could be kept confidential.

It certainly feels like the cat's out of the bag when it comes to mass surveillance. Facial recognition, for example, isn't going away, and there doesn't seem to be enough political / institutional momentum to counter the value that is provided to organizations by the data that one might view as an invasion of privacy. There doesn't seem to be a meaningful debate about maintaining personal privacy, so maybe the discussion should be who has access to these tools, systems, and institutions moving forward.

The problem with "open" surveilance systems is they can be a useful tool for abusers to track down people who have escaped their clutches.

Know your target number plate? Oh look, they go to such and such supermarket at around 8pm every Friday.

To fix this, personally I lean towards something like, "Privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful."