![]() | A fact from Reverse search warrant appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
01:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Created by GorillaWarfare ( talk). Self-nominated at 01:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
I think this section has undue prominence. The views explained in the section are minority views arguing for a pretty major change by both Congress and the Courts as it applies to one subset of reverse search warrants. The section outright says "most judges" have authorized these warrants, without citation. The judges who didn't authorize geofence warrants, as quoted by the linked EFF cite, denied applications in very specific applied circumstances and didn't reach questions broadly applicable to geofence warrants as a general matter. Lastly, there's no discussion of why such warrants are generally authorized in the first place. Overall, a better solution might be to delete the section entirely and instead just summarize: some people don't like reverse search warrants because of privacy or over breadth reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8A00:244:5559:8EDD:B52A:6100 ( talk) 02:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Reverse search warrant appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 November 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
01:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Created by GorillaWarfare ( talk). Self-nominated at 01:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
I think this section has undue prominence. The views explained in the section are minority views arguing for a pretty major change by both Congress and the Courts as it applies to one subset of reverse search warrants. The section outright says "most judges" have authorized these warrants, without citation. The judges who didn't authorize geofence warrants, as quoted by the linked EFF cite, denied applications in very specific applied circumstances and didn't reach questions broadly applicable to geofence warrants as a general matter. Lastly, there's no discussion of why such warrants are generally authorized in the first place. Overall, a better solution might be to delete the section entirely and instead just summarize: some people don't like reverse search warrants because of privacy or over breadth reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8A00:244:5559:8EDD:B52A:6100 ( talk) 02:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)