> nothing in this article made me question individualism as being a strong counter to surveillance. as I understood it, that has nothing to do with the point o

> nothing in this article made me question individualism as being a strong counter to surveillance. as I understood it, that has nothing to do with the point of the article. On that level, I'd say the point of the article is how both east and west are converging towards a similar amount of individual surveillance (while most of the article deals with why this may be the case)