> If that is the case, the sheer number of those likely caught in that particular surveillance would likely be categorized as mass surveillance No need to spec

> If that is the case, the sheer number of those likely caught in that particular surveillance would likely be categorized as mass surveillance No need to speculate. The internet companies that provide this data publish transparency reports showing ranges for how many accounts are affected. It's a small fraction of a percent. > The how is simple. We take everything in. That is illegal, and there is no evidence of that happening. PRISM, the program that we're talking about in particular, explicitly isn't that according to Snowden's documents and the declassified documents. > when IC had a chance to come clean and chose not to He came clean right after and declassified a bunch of documents on that phone metadata program (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2013/item/908-dni-clapper-declassifies-and-releases-telephone-metadata-collection-documents https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-...). Remember, the line of questioning was about if the NSA builds dossiers on Americans, which it doesn't do. The questions then pivoted to whether it collects any information at all about Americans, which would include the phone metadata collection > I can't really take their words at face value You don't have to. There have been several leaks, including Snowden's massive leak, showing that the NSA doesn't do this. There is also the law, which says the NSA can't do this, and there is congressional oversight from the Senate Intelligence Committee, which ensures that the NSA doesn't do this. If what you claim was happening, leakers would be sure to leak that first over anything else because it is unquestionably illegal.