Likewise I would prefer nobody does it, but that isn’t feasible given how easy it is to do it.

But… money is one kind of power, so I don’t think it’s “better”.

Given what happened in living memory to a previous government in (East) Germany that abused surveillance power, I both accept the concern, and yet also don’t expect it to actually apply here, at least not until about 2040 when the last people who remember experiencing the receiving end of it retire.

In smaller democracies the government tend to serve the people. In that case the purpose of the spying is to serve the people and not a government power grab, that is how democracies are intended to work.

Also large enough corporations tend to do things for power reasons rather than money, as once you are a billionaire your money is mostly just a means to exert power so trading money for power is what you do. And at that size they start to intermingle with governments, making the acts of the company hard to separate from acts of the government.

"The people" don't have any more right to my data than anyone else.

For the people is excellent propaganda, but it’s not rooted in a kind history, nor justification to spy on your own citizens without probable cause nor warrant to do so.

A small democracy can still be an illiberal democracy, and a large democracy can still be a liberal democracy. However the size of the democracy nor the probable liberalness of a democracy should serve as a grant for arbitrary power wielded on behalf of anyone, even “the people”.

Maybe top-100 population US cities don’t count as “small democracies” in your definition. But if they do, I’d argue that small democracies do plenty to protect owners of capital at the expense of people in the lower half of wealth owners.

For example, take the surveillance and excess force against protestors during the summer of 2020 in the US (various judges and courts have agreed that some of the most high-profile police actions were illegal.)