That's exactly why I think total surveillance can be totally fine. You just need to have unrestricted access to all recordings of you. It can prove many things for you and if someone will try to smear you by using some recording ripped out of context you can provide context if you have access to the material.
Of course US will have to do something about the law mess. Whatever they do, it can be only improvement over current: we have too many laws to even count them, and we are sort of fine not enforcing most of them, most of the time because bunch of them are silly.
But if we rely on this too much it would in theory give more power to hackers, and more reliance on the secureness of such a system. Suddenly you're being framed by some entity with sufficient political or hacking power.
I sometimes thought the same way, but yesterday I read Asimov's "The Dead Past" and it made me realize where the limit of this lies. I'm not sure if we want it that far.
If you can get info on yourself, can a terrorist use it to determine if whether they are suspected or not? I mean, the point of the government gathering the info was to have a monoploy on it.
Of course US will have to do something about the law mess. Whatever they do, it can be only improvement over current: we have too many laws to even count them, and we are sort of fine not enforcing most of them, most of the time because bunch of them are silly.