the logo almost answers the question.
a. recording people's actions is more likely to be useful to our enemies than it is to us, whether for the purposes of surveillance, criminal charges, making it more confusing who is doing what (how does one tell an "independent journalist" from a corporate one?), etc.
b. recording people's actions is part of making actions spectacular (reifying them, making them abstract and separate from people's lives).
c. the idea that these recordings are helpful in some kind of "protecting ourselves" or "growing ourselves" way relies on the extremely limited notion that more information is what is required to make people free, or that the State cares very much when it is recorded doing heinous things. As an example, while it is true that having an iraqi war vet--who was tailor-made to be a posterboy (being white, not large, etc)--be attacked on national tv did galvanize people, it is entirely open to question how relevant that galvanizing was. and that was pretty much the best possible scenario for public response... this c response basically loops back to a. insufficient good for the bad involved.