> On Apr 11, 2016, at 10:26 , Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 11, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon 2016-Apr-11 13:02:14 -0400, Ken Chase <m...@sizone.org> wrote: >> >>> TL;DR: GeoIP put unknown IP location mappings to the 'center of the country' >>> but then rounded off the lat long so it points at this farm. >>> >>> Cant believe law enforcement is using this kind of info to execute searches. >>> Wouldnt that undermine the credibility of any evidence brought up in trials >>> for any geoip locates? >>> >>> Seems to me locating unknowns somewhere in the middle of a big lake or park >>> in >>> the center of the country might be a better idea. >> >> ...how about actually marking an unknown as...oh, I dunno: "unknown"? Is >> there no analogue in the GeoIP lookups for a 404? > > It's not unknown - it's (according to the DB, anyway, which has a bunch of > flaws) "in the US somewhere". > > The problem with MaxMind (and other geoip databases I've seen that do > Lat/Long as well as Country / State / Town) is that the data doesn't include > uncertainty, so it returns "38.0/-97.0" rather than "somewhere in a 3000 mile > radius circle centered on 38.0/-97.0". > > Someone should show them RFC 1876 as an example of better practice. > > Cheers, > Steve
So really, what is needed is two additional fields for the lat/lon of laterr/lonerr so that, for example, instead of just 38.0/-97.0, you would get 38.0±2/-97.0±10 or something like that. This seems reasonable to me. Owen
