Well I guess what people really care about is the story. The narrative that you derive from the pictures (and assumedly, audio recordings). And a TLDR of that. That would be an automation problem.

A dozen high-quality TLDRs and you've got the local, state, national and global scoop, as well as the latest dirt on politicians and movie stars.

I think that people would gobble that eagerly.

So a million little cameras = automated news.

Nearly everyone cares. But the people you're referring to carefully weigh all the facts (what little there usually are) before coming to a conclusion.

In which trial was it unambiguous that the police broke the law and also demonstrated institutionalized racism, and faced no repercussions?

I'm all for police accountability, but when we do have video evidence it often ambiguous on if the officer was in the wrong in using force. And when it isn't ambiguous, the officer goes to jail.

Actually people do care, especially since there is video. what they still don't care about that would probably need video as well is the staggering amount of black on black shooting.

however as a society are we willing to give up that much privacy the moment we step out the door, where anything and everything could be a recording device. then again if we are drowning in being observed do we in turn find more freedom?

With as many cameras as we already have, there isn't much privacy anywhere, unless we live alone.

I just reread The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter. Basically, they argue that group consciousness is the best option where there is no privacy.

Right, sadly enough. Plus the fact that people will believe what they like, and likely won't trust all that complicated technical stuff.

Truth is subjective, culture, etc...

Eventually the science fanatics (empiricists) will realize this or get defunded of their jobs.