4 ms·
> I'm not in that city. Same, it said Riverside but I'm in San Diego (about 100 miles away from Riverside). Of course, its just using a geolocation database f
by georgemcbay 5mo ago
> I'm not in that city.
Same, it said Riverside but I'm in San Diego (about 100 miles away from Riverside).
Of course, its just using a geolocation database for the IP address and thus reporting the location of some switching center Verizon runs and not my actual location.
If you're trying to prove a point about privacy its probably best not to lead off with information that can be off by hundreds of miles while presenting the fact that it "knows" this information as being darkly ominous.
Presenting this information while being wrong probably does the opposite of the site's intent and gives some people a false sense of security because what real websites and apps track about you using digital fingerprinting is a lot more detailed, personalized and (usually) correct than what this website presents.
- mwheelz 5mo agoThis is a real version of the critique and I've been thinking about it. The page leans on an IP-to-geo lookup that's known to be approximate (city-level on a good day, region-level often, wrong-city sometimes); accuracy isn't the point, any location, given without asking, is the point. But you're right that leading with a wrong answer gives readers permission to dismiss the whole. Considering opening with timezone instead and demoting geo to later, where it lands as "we tried, here's how close we got." Open to better suggestions.