I've been pondering this for some time - sousveillance is arguably better than surveillance, in that it potentially allows people to shine a light on many more

I've been pondering this for some time - sousveillance is arguably better than surveillance, in that it potentially allows people to shine a light on many more troubling situations - and keep evidence - and to some extent it reduces the 'surveillance disparity' between police/law enforcement and everyday citizens. That said, there are a lot of caveats with the road we're on just now. One of these is that Google is driving this forward as a single player, and - have no doubt - that's where they want to be. If we place all of our sousveillance content with one organization, then we place a lot of trust in that organization to keep it safe, not censor it against our wishes, and so forth. I trust Google a lot more than many, many other companies, but ultimately it is still possible for it to be strong-armed and pressured into doing things behind the scenes which may or may not be to everyone's benefit - or more typically, are to a specific cause's benefit, or for pure business reasons. For a truly open, transparent future we'd need some kind of distributed, reliable shared fabric into which sousveillance content could be stored - and also potentially analyzed if we want to make use of the additional benefits of image/video/audio recognition, tagging etc. And that's when the challenges of bandwidth, latency, availability of technical expertise, infrastructure cost, etc all come into play, so I think at least in the near term we are still looking at placing our trust in one of a few providers. PS: Also I'd add that sousveillance isn't a magical fix-all; if you have a recording of someone taking a swing at you with a weapon, that isn't evidence that you weren't spending the previous few hours tormenting them - there will be situations of selective editing and misrepresentation, just as there are in other forms of media.