"Extremism also depends on context. In many societies resistance to universal ID cards is not considered extreme at all."

Of course. For the Taliban, requiring women to wear the burka isn't considered extreme at all. Probably, no-one
considers HIMSELF an extremist; the only scale is comparison with other people.

A society which has lots of surveillance goes hand in hand with a society which trusts its government. (I'm not
talking about totalitarian police states, but rather democratic societies (really democratic, with several parties,
PR etc) whose population WANTS surveillance.) It also goes hand in hand with people trusting each other. I think that
in many cases, the extreme individualism (libertarianism) at the personal level, "me against the world", translates
into "my country against the world". People happy to live near, in many senses, to each other tend to be more
concerned about the world living together.

But, where is the problem. Suppose there is a crime and the police send an SMS to everyone who was near the
scene of the crime when it happened, asking for helpful information. What's wrong with that? Where is the
CONFLICT betwwen giving the police more power and personal freedom---except the personal freedom for the guilty,
of course?

What if the police ask for DNA samples from everyone near the scene of the crime? Why not? What does an
innocent person have to lose. Since no-one equates being near the scene of the crime with suspicion, why not
check everyone---if the DNA doesn't match, no problem, but it might help to find the guilty party. Why not
have a database of every person's DNA, fingerprints etc? It WOULD help catch criminals. How can it possibly
have an adverse effect on the innocent?

Of course, if you are thinking about the danger that your health insurance might drop you if they realise
you have some genetic defect or whatever, then I can only say that a country which doesn't have state health
insurance for everyone, full stop, is beyond repair anyway.