Franky, I think that question is pointless in the substantive argument. What rights would you lose if you had a government minder? I think the answer to that is -NONE-, except for "privacy," and that could be managed (e.g., we submit to infrequent intrusions now, so the question of "minder" is merely one of frequency).
Of course I realize that "government minder" is an extreme hypotetical that is certainly not suggested, nor does the hypothetical have a snowball's chance in hell of coming about. My point in raising the ridiculous extreme hypothetical is to illustrate that even in that case, the public would not lose any rights.
I can't think of any rights that I lost while the country was under Clinton, or Carter either - or ant that I would lose if Hillary! was elected POTUS.
I certainly don't lose any rights if my phone is tapped full time, and the tax man is calls me in for an audit once a quarter. My rights are unaffected if all of my travel, car rental, hotel visits, bank transactions and retail purchases are reported to the government either, although that would add a compliance cost.
Ah, HUH? The POINT is that nobody can name any rights they're lost.
It appears that most of the people objecting to the act think "unreasonable" should be replaced with "ANY."
Sorry. I want my government hunting terrorists.