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 SCREENSH

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-secret-safest-place-internet-tracks-users 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: Correctly Resolved Incorrectly Resolved Unresolved GeoLite2 City 75% 14% 12% GeoIP2 City 84% 13% 3% GeoIP2 Precision City. 84% 13% 3% source: https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip2-city-accuracy?country=United+States&resolution=50 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?