Don't want to presume to answer for the prior poster, but one possible solution to the second problem on your list is to consider the second half of the assertion in the context of radical and ubiquitous observation.

Assume the dystopia: with my smartphone I can tap in to the network of smart dust that blankets the world and can view and hear anything that is happening anywhere. We tend to consider this from the viewpoint of the observed but invert it and consider the constraints upon the observer/judge. Imagine how difficult it would be for people to judge and punish you for this lack of conformity if it is trivial for you to show a similar collection of mistakes and 'bad' behavior on the part of those who would judge you and if you can know who is watching you at any time (because you can watch them watching you.)

It is not quite a complete solution, but it seems to me that people tend to focus on one side of an imagined power relationship without necessarily asking if that power structure could be maintained in the new environment.

Cheers!

Yes, you've got it.

(I don't know about giving everyone access, but the folks who do have access should be subject to the system in a way that is self-correcting.)

As for whether the result will be dystopian or otherwise, I have no idea, really. I once wrote:

> The true horror of technological omniscience is that it shall force us for once to live according to our own rules. For the first time in history we shall have to do without hypocrisy and privilege. The new equilibrium will not involve tilting at the windmills of ubiquitous sensors and processing power but rather learning what explicit rules we can actually live by, finding, in effect, the real shape of human society.