quantity versus quality
The point doesn't get any stronger with repetition.
You seem to have a real "thing" about guns, as if a gun was the only possible way to coerce someone. Would it not be coercion if someone held a knife to your throat? What about holding a family member at gun- or knife-point? What if it was only a physical possession, such as your car, that was being held hostage to force your behavior? What if the thing of value was intangible, such as your reputation, and the weapon was the threat of blackmail/slander?
What if the thing being used against you was your ability to participate in the economy? What if the hostage is your ability to communicate and make a living?
I can ditch the gasoline credit card. I don't have to use e-mail. I don't have to use the internet.
And you can go live in a plywood Kaczynski shack, too. But don't you think that just maybe the problem is very real if you have to go to that extreme to avoid surveillance?
What ubiquitous surveillance holds hostage is your right and ability to participate in society at all. Go along with it, or buy a load of plywood and head for the hills. By your standards that may seem like a "choice", but rational people see the coercion.
I believe that a lot of effort was made to tilt this survey to put the U.S. on the same plane as Red China. The difference is that the surveillance in Red China brings real fear.
I'm only surprised it took you more than one post to denounce the survey as biased. Of course you'd say so, because if "you accept it, it goes someplace you do NOT want to go. But it doesn't make it any less valid".