Well, after reading the entire thread, there really isn't much to say here except there are a few things that bothered me enough to make me feel inclined to reply. Please, by all means correct my understanding if you find it sorely lacking because honestly, this did not make any sense to me.
To make a general summary of the request:
1. The idea is to be able to trace the source of a hacker and manipulate security cameras such that the hacker is caught.
2. That the idea presented aims to eliminate or at the very least reduce the attempts at cracking and terrorism.
3. That, in addition, it also aims to prevent the use of the system by any unauthorized person via image authentication.
And by these, I assumed the following:
1. That the idea is to enhance and better security.
2. That the software is to prevent unauthorized use regardless of intention.
3. That the request assumes and at most intends to create a unified security system across all institutions, private or public in an attempt at security.
I can understand why anyone would want security, I really do, and the idea of a monitoring system is not new. This is why, I assume, regardless of how people had replied, there is still insistence that this system would work. To some extent, all that has been questioned is how it would be implemented which of course is not for us to answer. If we are to question how, we imply that there is a remote possibility albeit a difficult one to achieve. I can't say I've enough technical knowledge on the matter to participate in that debate. I can understand, but I cannot contribute. So I had to question why, instead, would this system work, and of course, as any student must, the opposite, why not?
As to why it would work, he panopticon has largely already been explored and is being put into practice bit by bit so there really isn't quite much to add there. Given the amount of articles available on the matter, and how people have responded thus far, I assume most of us already know why. Why it wouldn't work, however, applies differently.
For one thing, to create a unified system assumes total control over all surveillance systems which is a breach of privacy. This would seem trivial, unless of course, you are also to consider that as with any breach in privacy comes at a risk of divulging information, sensitive, too at that, to an entity we will grant full trust on. Not only that, but that we are to assume that this entity is entirely incorruptible. For the sake of argument let's assume it does exist, but for any security-conscious individual, to create a monitoring system capable of tracking anyone, has access to rather intimate--for lack of a better word--information on an individual, and furthermore, made available to everyone is, by and large, the greatest security risk possible. Even more so the fact that one is able to monitor legitimately every corner that has a security camera allows anyone to monitor locations that are viable targets while eliminating their risk of exposure only makes it even more difficult to track anyone as this entails that everyone using the software is a viable suspect. This will not help you pinpoint the suspect. They'll just plant the tree in your forest. You'd actually help them hide more than you'd be trapping them.
To assume all things are perfect is the greatest fallacy one can commit when dealing with security. This is never a good idea regardless of who and how they will enforce it. Besides, we already know how to keep safe. The idea is to make sure everyone conforms to what is just and true. The issue isn't conformity. It's what is just and true. This is why unified systems are less likely to succeed the more people participate.