While the recent IRS disclosures of targeting Tea Party activists is deplorable, I'm still optimistic that it's the exception and not the rule in the US.
Criminals gaining this access is definitely plausible.
Foreign governments using it for oppression/retaliation is also very plausible.
I think the parent is slightly "better" in the followings senses. First, I think "surveillance state can be used to oppress citizens" is less novel a thought (though maybe I'm optimistic?). Second, yours presumes a corrupt government eager to secure its power, while parent presumes a corrupt individual eager to make money. While the former is not exactly remote, the latter is (I think) even more common.
What would it matter? Does the extra lead time make it somehow easier to crush a protest (since we are assuming a tyrannical government). I am pretty sure you could get drones airborne and shooting missiles at protesters pretty quickly with or without NSA wiretapping.
No that's not what you do. If you have enough time, first you insert some fool like Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich into the movement, and slowly dismantle it from the inside (the Tea Party). If you need something quick, you insert a provocateur into the group that instigates some kind of violence that makes the whole group look stupid.
