OK, I guess that depends on how you define surveillance. I think of surveillance as having some kind of relation to the state, for example a private investigator looking into a court matter, a company sharing information with the government (outside of warrants), etc. If we're taking surveillance to mean general tracking, then yes the OP's statement probably doesn't need further evidence.

I think most folks associate surveillance with this definition of the word: "continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information"

The distinction is basically none. Allowing tracking is a kin to state surveillance. If the data is tracked, you should assume the government has it and I’d cite Snowden and the political climate chipping away at privacy rights.