Why do I believe this isn't where it will end...
Look at the history of any legislation, why would this one be any different from the hundreds of thousands passed historically?
Gun laws originated from the days of separatism and were enacted solely to deny non-white citizens the right to bear arms.
Same thing with drug laws, they were initially only meant to make it illegal for 'non-civilized' races (AKA any race that isn't white) from consuming drugs.
Look at how 'privacy' has been eroding over the past 15 years, there is a trend, and assuming it will stop here is naive, IMHO.
Now, on to the issue of privacy itself and what are you're 'rights' as a citizen.
Ever heard of Chief Justice Louis Brandeis, the guy Brandeis University was named after? He once said something to the effect of, "Man has the right to be left alone, it is implicitly guaranteed by the 4th amendment". I forget the exact quote, but it was something very close to that.
Take a read of Katz v. United States
You are all aware of the "Open Fields Doctrine and the Expectation of Privacy", right?
U.S. Open Fields Doctrine wrote:
While open fields are not be protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, is. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person’s home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.
An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."
The challenge here is that the clause defines the privacy in the form of societies reasonable expectation of privacy, which has greatly changed over the decades. What was once reasonably expected to be private, may not now.
That is part of the problem and illustrates the point, the entire notion of privacy is erroding, and if it continues, there will be no such expectation of privacy anywhere.
Katz v. USA wrote:
In the decision the Supreme Court sided with Katz, holding that the Fourth Amendment protects his right to privacy, wherever he may be. Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment." The thrust of the Court's argument was that the Amendment protects people and not just places. This ruling also extended the protection of the Fourth Amendment to include private conversation in addition to corporal objects.