Mike,
I think you've got a point, though it depends on how the camera surveillance is managed.
If it is private citizens who carry cameras on their person or property and are free to send the video when and where they choose, and the idea caught on so everyone wanted to do it, then it would be a form of non-coerced self organization, and thus extropic.
If however, it was a government (or other superorganism) that mandated universal surveillance, even if the system were fully automated and operated in good faith, only used to prevent harm or capture and convict violent offenders, then it would not be extropian because of its top down nature and nonvoluntary nature. You are correct however that it could be considered transhumanistic.
Ubiquitous camera surveillance would be a powerful tool in the fight against violent crime, but as with any powerful tool, its misuse could cause great harm as well. In the case of the extropian approach there's always the chance someone might be able to tap into your surveillance, and that is a risk you'd have to guard against and be willing to accept. In the case of the other, governmental approach, the danger is that those who are supposed to be guarding you may turn the surveillance against you (or as bad, do their job incompetantly).
Personally, I think that the best way to implement camera surveillance would be on a private basis, with perhaps a voluntary fund set up to help pay for camera security for the indigent (who often times are the ones most at risk), with an option to have your pictures downloaded to the police for analysis, evidence, and as a call for help.
Glen Finney