However that sum is low. You need 24/7 security people at watch, both guarding him and the home and then also key family members.
It is possible that he prefers a low attention detail, which reduces cost. But we're still easily talking about a mid two digit number for full-time personal.
It is however likely that different aspects are accounted differently (general company estate security etc.)
If you had to be constantly followed by security people the whole day, would your complete loss of privacy be alleviated by them being cheap?
Include in the equation that Satoshi additionally likely is a person who puts a high value on privacy, given that they ensured to be anonymous up to now.
I think you misinterpreted the meaning of my comments. $339k is a bargain for Berkshire (or whoever pays it) considering who they're protecting. That's all.