That's a pretty good description of most people IC affiliated. I'm not sure about your interviewer friend though, doesn't sound like someone I'd want to interact with.
That said, almost all of how these things work are out there in memoirs, biographies and non-fiction books. Robert Gates is a prolific writer and did a great job in his memoirs describing the IC. I mean yes the majority are purely discreet in their current or former capacity. It took me a long time before I would discuss my affiliations etc... and I generally don't discuss anything more than structural "how it works" kind of things that can be found in a lot of memoirs etc as described.
I'm always happy to discuss to a point but most of it would just be boring stuff.
-16 domestic partners (CIA, FBI, US Army, US Navy, NSA etc...),
-Five Eyes (Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, US),
-NATO,
-Whatever non-NATO intelligence service we are working with internationally as a coalition partner, or Major non-Nato Ally (MNNA) Singapore is a great example here.
So your question is better asked: Which civilians does the IC track, for what period of time, based on what requirement, using what tools?
"Dragnet" surveillance is kind of a misnomer. If data is created and stored somewhere, even on a private server in your basement, then the IC might have an interest in knowing what and where that data is. This exists in the form of the Warrants and National Security Letter process, or many other processes wherein private data becomes public via national security interest. However, until the IC actually begins investigating and (depending on jurisdiction) has an analyst look at that information for a specific intelligence requirement - it isn't technically "collected" - which is important legally but doesn't make a difference to most people.
The IC at it's most effective, using international treaties and a combination of Title 50 and Title 10 authorities, could find anyone, anywhere, anytime in the world and then could arrest/capture that person without firing a shot within lets say a week. That's the service guarantee that the IC provides to presidents and world leaders. However those ops cost MILLIONS to do and with hundreds of people. That kind of effort is for someone who is legitimately an imminent mortal threat to someone from the above coalition.
7.999M of the 8 Billion world citizens are so uninteresting in this context that they are not worth the time of a GS-13 analyst or case officer/agent making $120k/yr.
Any information/data you produce that is stored somewhere, or recoverable can be "collected" should you be involved in something that the Five Eyes determines is a threat.
So it's much like Capitalism: in the background and present always, able to do productive, positive things and operate effectively and efficiently BUT over the long run, generally is there to maintain power structures that exist, keeping adversarial organizations in a box on behalf of the ruling elite.
So for most citizens the "spying" is neutral and invisible and keeps the world running within the law/power structure as it is built - which, depending on which side you're on can be great or terrifying. As with anything that powerful though, has a tendency to crush and run over a lot of things unintentionally too.
So if your perspective is that the EXISTENCE of such an organization is itself a threat then you'd rank it 10/10
If you're wondering what the chances of being directly and individually oppressed by "spying" from the IC, I'd rank it 0/10 unless you're an international criminal of some sort.
The more interesting question to me is: What are lawmakers and elected officials asking the IC to do?
That's a pretty good description of most people IC affiliated. I'm not sure about your interviewer friend though, doesn't sound like someone I'd want to interact with.
That said, almost all of how these things work are out there in memoirs, biographies and non-fiction books. Robert Gates is a prolific writer and did a great job in his memoirs describing the IC. I mean yes the majority are purely discreet in their current or former capacity. It took me a long time before I would discuss my affiliations etc... and I generally don't discuss anything more than structural "how it works" kind of things that can be found in a lot of memoirs etc as described.
I'm always happy to discuss to a point but most of it would just be boring stuff.