Another complication is that you have to define what exactly constitutes surveillance.

If you throw out that term, and instead consider a continuum where on one side you have total obliviousness (state isn't aware that you exist at all) and on the other total panopticon-ness (state has total awareness of you in every moment) then it starts to feel tractable.

Although then you have the same issue with what constitutes "the state" which is easy to talk about and less easy to define, esp now. Given that the degree of being surveilled is split across innumerable entities, with various levels of influence on your life and that interact in complicated ways --

that's why I find this rhetorical question hard to think about, anyway. You can't pry the elements apart.