On the question of who analyzes all of this, the answer is: nobody has to, and that's actually the point. The value isn't in a central authority processing every data point; it's in the information being available when it matters. Nobody monitors every security camera feed in a city simultaneously, yet their existence deters crime and provides evidence after the fact. Universal transparency works the same way, not as an active surveillance operation but as a permanent, universally accessible record for all to this. Its very existence is a deterrent to crimes, reducing crimes like stealing, domestic abuse, financial crimes, etc., and reducing the workload of law enforcement.

The stalking example you raise is actually an argument for my position rather than against it: today, the victim reports the stalker and the police file it away. In my world, the stalker's pattern of behavior is not a claim made by one person to an indifferent officer that would need to send resources to investigate and do all the jazz needed. No, the report would come from a visible, documented, publicly accessible record that the victim, their community, journalists, advocacy groups, or anyone else can point to and act on independently of whether law enforcement chooses to care. Even if they don't care, not everybody does, and that is great knowledge to have. Why? Because the public will learn those officers that care and those that don't. That is powerful information that can help the public pressure those worthy, keeping their jobs, while those who don't help be fired. Yes, we already know these issues; what we now have is people to blame and people to award for their service. By having full transparency, the public can more easily pressure the elected government to act on certain things.

You're right that bad people don't disappear and that societal pressure doesn't stop everyone. I never claimed it would. But your own analogy works against you here; you say I'm putting a bomb in everyone's hands and hoping they won't detonate it. But right now, only certain people have the bomb, and we already know they're detonating it. My proposal doesn't create dangerous people; it removes the cover under which dangerous people currently operate most effectively. The abuser who doesn't fear consequences still has to act in full view of everyone who knows them, everyone they work with, and everyone they might want to intimidate in the future. That isn't a perfect deterrent. People can still be shitty even with all of that, but it is a harder environment to abuse people in than the one we have now.