You would have to go and look at the part of the code section 202 amended, so, yes, you are reading it incorrectly by looking only at the title.
Sections 215 and 218 were the controversial provisions that critics of the Act felt needed fine tuning or could be subject to abuse, and are what you want to be looking at. Both of these amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, commonly known as FISA.
In a nutshell, everything under FISA is secret. With respect to section 215, a records request under FISA cannot be disclosed to the target. Even though the amendment specifically provided that an investigation may only be made to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence gathering and is not to be made of a United States person solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment, the concern is that people may choose not to engage in constitutionally protected first amendment activities if they think their records can be requested without their knowing of it, thus having a possible chilling effect on otherwise lawful conduct.
Before section 218, a FISA surveillance warrant could issue if there was probable cause to believe a target was a foreign power or agent of a foreign power and intelligence gathering was the sole purpose of the surveillance. After section 218, intelligence gathering need only be a significant purpose of the surveillance. Critics are afraid that law enforcement will use the FISA court to initiate surveillance if there is probable cause that the target is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power and they can show that intelligence gathering is a "significant" portion of the surveillance. Under straight criminal law procedures, a warrant would only be issued on a showing of probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The critics are afraid that by loosening this procedure from "sole" purpose, to "significant" purpose, that information will be obtained from surveillance that could not be obtained under traditional probable cause standards, and that criminal prosecution may be had on this improperly obtained evidence. Because of the secrecy of FISA, the concern is that the defendant may not be able to get the information to make a proper fourth amendment challenge to the evidence against him.
Anyway, that's how I understood it. I'm not engaged in international terrorism, clandestine intelligence gathering, and I'm not an agent of a foreign power, so I haven't worried much about this, and I don't know what the current status of these provisions are. They may have changed in the interim since passage of the original act.
