Reverse search warrant: Revision history

Filter revisionsshowhide

To date:

Tag filter:

Invert selection

External tools:

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

curprev 11:5511:55, 27 September 2023‎ Citation bot talk contribs‎ 7,255 bytes −24‎ Alter: title, template type. Add: magazine, jstor, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | #UCB_CommandLine undo

curprev 04:0304:03, 11 November 2021‎ Dumuzid talk contribs‎ 7,279 bytes −24‎ →‎Legality: I am sorry I am such a stickler here, but this strikes me as confusingly redundant; if you believe courts should hold that something is unconstitutional, you believe it to be unconstitutional in the first place (might be getting down too far down a positive law rabbit hole) undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 02:2802:28, 11 November 2021‎ 2601:14d:8a00:244:5559:8edd:b52a:6100 talk‎ 7,303 bytes −100‎ Ah I see - the "should be unconstitutional" phrase is designed to attribute the argument to the "some lawyers and privacy experts" phrase referenced at the beginning of the sentence. Rephrased so no it's more clear those advocates specifically are the ones who believe there should be a change in doctrine. undo