Lisa, I can see why this Times article would upset you. Until I read it about four times it upset me, too. It is an artful stitching together of disparate facts and suspicions, intended to upset us and make us overlook its slant.
Example: Read the second sentence again, and you will see it talks of "postmarket DEVICE surveillance" (emphasis mine), not surveillance of people.
Example: Third sentence. Very true, the word "surveillance" is disturbing because of its usual connotation of watching people. But you don't get upset when I say I conduct surveillance of the wetland from my duck blind.
Example: Fourth sentence. "Some have suggested the law lays the groundwork for compulsory microchip implantation...." Well, sure, and some have suggested that aliens teleport thousands of us to their flying saucers, anal-probe us (you'd think when they've seen one, they've seen them all), then teleport us back to our beds with no memory of the experience. Only a dishonest writer strings together a partial truth (surveillance sounds scary) with a paranoid delusion to twist our emotions.
Example: Second and third paragraphs. Straightforward, informational, not scary. Brilliant writing, allows us to relax as it transitions to the next:
Example: Fourth paragraph. Brings up a court case involving (I think) the Patriot Act, passed under the Bush administration. The Executive Branch of the government is charged by the Constitution to enforce the law, and the Justice Department is charged with defending the laws in court, regardless of whether the current president agrees with the law or not. Would you want it any other way? And yet the Times article implies that the whole law is Obama's idea. That is dishonest writing.
Example: Fifth paragraph. "... the Obama administration's incessant drive to expand government power over Americans' private lives..." That's plainly a jump in logic, something that I would want proved to me, and yet the writer acts as if I should accept it as an established fact.
Example: Last paragraph. "The health care law's provision mandating the purchase of health insurance, for example, is an unprecedented and unconstitutional claim of power under the Commerce Clause...." That is very much up for debate -- the law is carefully formulated in terms of taxes, not simple mandates. Most serious legal scholars believe it WILL hold up in court. We may or may not agree that Congress should do that. However, the writer presents as established fact something he knows is not yet established. Again, dishonest writing.
So while I admire the writer's skill at being dishonest, I ended up not very upset by the "surveillance" factor, but very upset at his manipulation of my feelings. And your feelings. He is preaching to the choir -- if you start by WANTING to believe what he is saying then it is easy to overlook his tricks and distortions.