Theres a difference between as an intelligence organisation having access to data, and "someone in power is angry because they watched a TV advert, I want to see what they know"
but, your over all picture is still, sadly correct.
* Limit the damage that a person can do- IE; don’t aggregate everything in the hands of one person.
* Tonnes of oversight into who accesses the data and why.
In theory the US chooses the latter, but only for nationals and the snowden leaks were proving that this was basically just a rubber stamp and constantly was bypassed on technicalities..
.. outside of the US, there’s no legal framework to protect your data from US authorities, no matter who they are, at all.
They couldn’t be more different. One is doing it in secrecy and for a “reason”, to spy on someone. The other one will do it in public because he can and doesn’t like your name.
> One is doing it in secrecy and for a “reason”, to spy on someone.
When it's secret, how can you ever check? Even if it was just because the person on top or in the middle had a personal judge, they'll always say it was for legitimate spying purposes and no-one has any way to call them out.
but, your over all picture is still, sadly correct.