Your comments are at odds with the evidence presented by the Guardian, namely that you gave them access to your backend geo-tracking tool and they TOOK SCREENSHOTS:
With regards to the MaxMind Legacy databases (which are updated every Tuesday) the following accuracy is tested by MaxMind and presented on their website:
Accurate enough to pin-point a particular place in Washington D.C. it seems. 75%/84% isn't bad.
I honestly can't understand that denial. The Guardian visited your offices and they were allowed access to the tool you deny exists and they took screenshots of posts from your users who posted from the Whitehouse. By the sounds of it someone at your company naively showboated the capabilities of your system to a journalist, demonstrating features that are completely contrary to your mission statement.
You then come here and try and deny the whole thing as if we are idiots.
I normally error on the side of caution, but I truly can't see how you can defend against the overwhelming evidence.
Are you stating that the screenshots are fabricated?
ok, then can you explain how there can be a screenshot that states a user at location X said Y then?
As per the screenshot with the caption:
A Whisper user posted this message from the vicinity of
the White House. The red dots indicate Whisper messages
sent from that location. Potentially identifying
information has been redacted by the Guardian.
I think all they're saying is that the location X appears precise, but that it's not accurate. Just because the pin appears at location X doesn't mean that the user was actually at location X, simply that the database ended up recording their location as a (inaccurate) point that happened to be X, as opposed to recording an "area of uncertainty" or similar construct.
That may be true, but the meat of the contention is that Whisper are tracking their users' locations, even when those users asked Whisper not to. The accuracy of the tracking is a bit of a red herring: Whisper is tracking their users' location, without those users' consent.
Comments
Your comments are at odds with the evidence presented by the Guardian, namely that you gave them access to your backend geo-tracking tool and they TOOK SCREENSHOTS:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/-sp-whispers-se...
With regards to the MaxMind Legacy databases (which are updated every Tuesday) the following accuracy is tested by MaxMind and presented on their website:
source: https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip2-city-accuracy?country=Unit...Accurate enough to pin-point a particular place in Washington D.C. it seems. 75%/84% isn't bad.
I honestly can't understand that denial. The Guardian visited your offices and they were allowed access to the tool you deny exists and they took screenshots of posts from your users who posted from the Whitehouse. By the sounds of it someone at your company naively showboated the capabilities of your system to a journalist, demonstrating features that are completely contrary to your mission statement.
You then come here and try and deny the whole thing as if we are idiots.
I normally error on the side of caution, but I truly can't see how you can defend against the overwhelming evidence.
Are you stating that the screenshots are fabricated?
No, I'm saying the whisper locations are made up per #3 above.
ok, then can you explain how there can be a screenshot that states a user at location X said Y then?
As per the screenshot with the caption:
I think all they're saying is that the location X appears precise, but that it's not accurate. Just because the pin appears at location X doesn't mean that the user was actually at location X, simply that the database ended up recording their location as a (inaccurate) point that happened to be X, as opposed to recording an "area of uncertainty" or similar construct.
That may be true, but the meat of the contention is that Whisper are tracking their users' locations, even when those users asked Whisper not to. The accuracy of the tracking is a bit of a red herring: Whisper is tracking their users' location, without those users' consent.
I'm not trying to advocate one way or the other with this comment, just to clarify what is actually being argued about.
Why not allow people to choose where they want to post "from" instead?