Talk:CLOUD Act

Missing NPOV content

There have been concerns/issues raised over the text of the law and it could be missuses, especially by countries with less regard for human rights such as China, or how it can be used to get around 4th amendment protections that would otherwise apply to U.S. citizen's cloud data in certain circumstances. The law is still be evaluated by cyber rights and constitutional rights lawyers from the likes of the ACLU and EFF and such, but their has been enough concerns already raised to at least address the lack of criticism/concerns about the CLOUD act. As more opinions/analysis for or against the CLOUD act come in we can expand whatever section we include this info in to flesh it out better. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:1DCC:201F:A296:DBE1 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not expressing an opinion one way or another, but the POV tag is inappropriate. If you think content and/or sources are missing then be bold and add them. If you insist on adding a tag then it would be more appropriate to use {{missing information}} or perhaps {{incomplete}}. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added stances of both Microsoft/Apple/etc. and of the ACLU/EFF/etc. so that its clear there were proponents and opponents of the bill --Masem (t) 18:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Elimination of the 4th Amendment

I feel it is vitally important to add to the article the fact that the Cloud Act effectively kills the 4th Amendment right to privacy and is an ILLEGAL law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.92.101.4 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

We can add opinions from legal experts or analysts from reliable sources that assert this, but we cannot state that ourselves, that's original research. --Masem (t) 19:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't be tough, four big groups including the ACLU (can't get much better a source than that) have stated it outright. I feel this part needs to be expanded and removed from the Support section. Maybe a section titled "Human Rights Problems". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.92.101.4 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not original research to state a point that is, or should be, obvious to anyone with a basic working knowledge of the subject matter. One does not have to do any research at all to be able to determine that something like this may be at odds with the fourth amendment given the undisputed general workings of the fourth amendment, unless there is an obvious counterargument as to why such might not be applicable. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Statutory Reference

It appears that the statutory reference citations for the United States Code and/or the Code of Federal Regulations are missing with respect to this article. It should be noted that the text of the Bill is generally disfavored when citing to law, Therefore it is appropriate to cite to the actual United States Code and/or Code of Federal Regulations, as appropriate. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)