I think that is what mass surveillance is commonly understood to mean. Trying to shift the meaning so that the GCQH can technically say there's no surveillance

I think that is what mass surveillance is commonly understood to mean. Trying to shift the meaning so that the GCQH can technically say there's no surveillance seems incredibly dishonest to me. If one needs to resort to pedantry to appear to be right, then there is no better justification for their views than a fallacy.