The ACLU's warning makes far more sense, and if something about the CLOUD act is going to be on the front page, it should be their article:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/internet-privac...
"The bill starts by giving the executive branch dramatically more power than it has today. It would allow Attorney General Sessions to enter into agreements with foreign governments that bypass current law, without any approval from Congress. Under these agreements, foreign governments would be able to get emails and other electronic information without any additional scrutiny by a U.S. judge or official. And, while the attorney general would need to consider a country’s human rights record, he is not prohibited from entering into an agreement with a country that has committed human rights abuses."
"That level of discretion alone is concerning. Even more, however, the bill would for the first time allow these foreign governments to wiretap in the U.S. — even in cases where they do not meet Wiretap Act standards. Paradoxically, that would give foreign governments the power to engage in surveillance — which could sweep in the information of Americans communicating with foreigners — that the U.S. itself would not be able to engage in. The bill also provides broad discretion to funnel this information back to the U.S., circumventing the Fourth Amendment. This information could potentially be used by the U.S. to engage in a variety of law enforcement actions."
I do wonder if they are being slightly coy here in their analysis. This isn't at all paradoxical, unless you are giving the players some serious benefit of the doubt.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/238...
Congress finds the following:
(1) Timely access to electronic data held by communications-service providers is an essential component of government efforts to protect public safety and combat serious crime, including terrorism.
(2) Such efforts by the United States Government are being impeded by the inability to access data stored outside the United States that is in the custody, control, or possession of communications-service providers that are subject to jurisdiction of the United States.
(3) Foreign governments also increasingly seek access to electronic data held by communications-service providers in the United States for the purpose of combating serious crime.
(4) Communications-service providers face potential conflicting legal obligations when a foreign government orders production of electronic data that United States law may prohibit providers from disclosing.
(5) Foreign law may create similarly conflicting legal obligations when chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the “Stored Communications Act”), requires disclosure of electronic data that foreign law prohibits communications-service providers from disclosing.
(6) International agreements provide a mechanism for resolving these potential conflicting legal obligations where the United States and the relevant foreign government share a common commitment to the rule of law and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
There should be a name for this. A "triple HN" or something.
Anybody else get that feeling?
Notably, laws like this almost always end up applying far beyond their envisioned scope simply because the landscape changes so fast. The intent of the DMCA or CFAA is substantially irrelevant when major legal cases end up hanging on technicalities in their wording.