>better technology, better mass surveillance

That's a rather limited way to look at things.  Let's consider:  Are we better off due to (computer and information) technology than, say, 1980?  In 1980, home computers were little more than toys, and the Internet as the public now knows it was 15-20 years from existing.  News was provided by four national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) and local newspapers, with no effective competition.  People, generally, found it hard to talk (type) to each other, other than face-to-face speaking.  

If you simply accept all of the positives of the subsequent 37 years as a given, and then ignore them, and focus solely on what you see to be the negatives, yes, you will get conclusions like "better technology, better mass surveillance".  But one of the results of that technology was and is that we, the public, are far better able to monitor the actions of governments, which ostensibly act in our name(s). 

 OUR 'mass surveillance' of the governments is very, very valuable.  I have no doubt that, for example, the Bush 43 administration got far more pushback on their actions than did the LBJ administration 1963-1969, in regards to the Vietnam war.  And even more pushback in regards to Syria.  As, I think, it ought to be and needs to be.  

           Jim Bell