Talk:Reverse search warrant

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:

Did you know... that some lawyers and privacy experts have questioned the constitutionality of reverse search warrants in the United States?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reverse search warrant.

Wikipedia

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that some lawyers and privacy experts have questioned the constitutionality of reverse search warrants in the United States? Source: [1][2]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/David Whitaker (publisher)

Created by GorillaWarfare (talk). Self-nominated at 01:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

good to go, nice work! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legality

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)[reply]