It's a thorny problem. While having everything be open would probably reduce double standards along the "government and people with influence" vs "non-governme

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.