Widespread sousveillance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance) is the path to the right kind of future!
Believe me, if constant personal surveillance in every moment and place becomes generally socially acceptable, there will be nothing to stop 'surveillance'.
We'll vote them out of office if they abuse their knowledge, because we'll know they've abused it.
“If the NSA is big brother, Glassholes are the new little brother.”
`Godwin's Law' Reductio ad Hitlerum:
"Our NSA-Youth Corps wears Glass, shouldn't you?"(tm)
The constant refrain of "oh it's 1984" is completely at odds to the empowerment of the public that readily available and pervasive recording devices have given us - the cellphone camera has done more to prevent tyranny then that book ever will.
Moreover, I don't think your neighbors would be particularly interested in recording your life; what they see is already stored in their minds. Now in exceptional cases they _would_ be interested, such as spotting someone break into your house -- and also on their own defense, of course -- for example if you offended them.
In any case, the case for the right of personal sousveillance is vastly stronger than against, as I see it.
Eventually you're going to elect priests and public officials (i.e. establishment authority figures) even though there are videos of them having sex and/or taking a shit. Because no one will care anymore.
I don't think I'm ready for that future, but there will be benefits as well as the obvious negatives.
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.