The best way to "detect" would be to, obviously, read it. So yes, this is surveillance, and just because you have good intentions doesn't mean you're not wrong.
What separates this from other "appeal to pity" tactics is that this bill is the source of this bill. This isn't a group of EU equivalent democratic/republican lawmakers who are pushing for a surveillance bill because they have their wallets padded with intelligence contractor money. This is a philanthropist who has track record of sustained, devoted, high-effort actions in fighting against this dark industry.
I suppose the counter argument remains the same though, right? Whomever is granted the authority to surveil will ultimately misuse their access. Admittedly, I can't pull myself away from agreeing with that. What a mess.