[HN Gopher] Google CEO allegedly sought to keep Incognito mode i...
___________________________________________________________________
Google CEO allegedly sought to keep Incognito mode issues out of
spotlight
Author : rastafang
Score : 185 points
Date : 2021-09-25 14:24 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| This is right up there with the poodle in the microwave.
| Everybody knew that "incognito mode" was an euphemism for "porn
| mode".
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Pfft, there's other uses for it. Such as signing into accounts
| one time on other people's computers.
| monkeyfacebag wrote:
| I personally use it all the time, for everything I don't want
| to show up in an autocomplete context. I started doing this
| probably 8 years ago after I got annoyed Google would auto
| suggest misspellings I had previously made. I think they're
| much better about this these days but at this point it's an
| instinct for pretty much every single one off Google query.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| That, in fact, is what it's often called within Google, I can
| testify.
|
| How about "keep your spouse from finding out you look at porn"
| mode? Because that's what it's for.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| The answer to the question whether the Incognito mode is private,
| given it's marketed as such, is the same as about Tesla's
| autopilot: yes, but actually no.
|
| As, sadly, are many other things. It seems to be the zeitgeist of
| modern marketing.
| bmicraft wrote:
| Teslas Autopilot does more 'automatic' stuff than real
| autopilot on a plan, which can basically only predefined follow
| gps waypoints with a set speed. Just because people are stupid
| about it should not necessitate any changes on Teslas part.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Yes, but you're missing the point: in the public perception,
| an autopilot is a device that flies the whole plane while
| pilots banter and drink coffee with croissants, go to the
| bathroom, and in general have a good time until it's time to
| land.
|
| Telling them that a country road is far more complex than the
| open sky, and that air traffic is quite sparse, helps little.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| A question that should precede any of this is: Why are you using
| Chrome at all?
|
| Why not keep it for Google services, if you want, but use Brave /
| Firefox / anything else for all other activities?
| jgwil2 wrote:
| We're talking about non-technical users here - the only such
| users who would be on Brave/FF are those with a family member
| in tech who told them to. Furthermore, it's my understanding
| that some sites tell users to use Chrome, as they don't test on
| other browsers.
| shiado wrote:
| I only use Youtube in incognito mode to avoid the Youtube
| algorithm and recently I think they have started to preserve
| suggestions between incognito sessions. Not in the way the
| algorithm usually works, but much more subtly. It's probably some
| minor region-based suggestion that triggers but who knows. In the
| future I think all algorithm driven content sites will use
| uniquely fingerprinted undeletable algorithmic suggestions.
| Companies are leaving money on the table by letting users reset
| the state on algorithms that increase content consumption.
| jlokier wrote:
| For me, the biggest surprise with Chrome Incognito mode was
| discovering that separate Incognito windows share cookies with
| each other.
|
| I had been logging into accounts in an Incognito window, then
| opening a new Incognito window to visit other sites assuming they
| were new private sessions. One day I was surprised to find myself
| already logged in to someplace I visited, in a new Incognito
| window.
|
| At that point, I discovered that much of my Incognito activity
| across the web for the previous few months was in fact tracked to
| my identifiable, logged in accounts. And that my multiple
| accounts (for work, other work, personal) were potentially being
| linked together, which I did not want.
|
| For months I hadn't noticed because I tended not to open the same
| sites more than once. So I hadn't realised that cookie sharing
| was happening, which means cross-site tracking was happening.
|
| Now I don't use Incognito windows any more. There's no point,
| they aren't what I expected.
|
| Now I use Firefox Containers to segregate account logins and
| reduce unwanted profiling (e.g. with YouTube), and Temporary
| Containers when I want a new, ephemeral session.
|
| Firefox Temporary Containers actually do what I'd mistakenly
| thought Incognito mode was for.
| bmicraft wrote:
| Don't all browsers handle incognito/private browsing in this
| way? From my pov they cloud not really do it any other way as
| long as pulling out tabs into their own or other windows is
| allowed.
| slippy_lolo wrote:
| Nope, I think in Safari all tabs are completely independent
| from one another in incognito.
|
| To be honest, it's sometimes a bit of a pain (e.g. when you
| are using incognito to just have a different identity, like
| to be on a corporate/personal account.) I wish a browser
| offered the idea of opening windows/tabs with selectable
| incognito identities.
| asiachick wrote:
| Agreed that is a pain. In fact if Google did it they'd
| likely be accused of making it less useful to purposely get
| people to not use it.
| jlokier wrote:
| > I wish a browser offered the idea of opening windows/tabs
| with selectable incognito identities.
|
| That's exactly what the Firefox Containers feature is.
|
| It's not that easy to use, and extensions that improve the
| UX or automate container selection are kind of messy. But
| it does work. It's excellent for when you need to use
| multiple accounts on a service.
| ipaddr wrote:
| That's a feature I appreciate. Opening new tabs shouldn't break
| your session.
|
| Firefox containers is a neat idea but creates a new session per
| container and wastes memory and open connections
| rastafang wrote:
| > That's a feature I appreciate.
|
| do you work for google?
| ikiris wrote:
| Incognito was designed to prevent local eavesdropping, and was
| upfront about that being the feature. Why do you think it had
| anything to do with far side tracking _at all_?
| jlokier wrote:
| The issue I've described _is_ about local eavesdropping, not
| only remote accounts.
|
| It was a surprise to open an new Incognito window and find it
| had access to sessions active in a different window.
|
| That defeats one of the expected use-cases of Incognito mode
| locally, which is when someone asks if they can borrow your
| computer to access their account. For example I've done this
| a few times in a library or hackerspace for someone I didn't
| know well. You open an Incognito window for them, and both
| you and they think it's safe for them to access their
| Facebook and Gmail or whatever, and then close the window.
| They think you can't browse their accounts after, and you
| think they can't browse your accounts if they stick to that
| window. Both turn out to be unexpectedly false - unless you
| know to kill all your existing Incognito windows first. Which
| you wouldn't do if you need to use them later, unless you
| _know_ you have to close all the other windows first.
|
| As for local vs remote tracking. Incognito documentation does
| not say local eavesdropping is the only feature. It talks
| about holding a separate session for "cookies and site data"
| and that those are deleted when the session is closed; and
| about restrictions on third-party cookies. From Chrome help:
|
| > "Cookies and site data are remembered while you're
| browsing, but deleted when you exit Incognito mode. You can
| choose to block third-party cookies when you open a new
| incognito window."
|
| Like anyone technically aware of how the web works, I don't
| expect this feature to prevent tracking in general, or to
| truly hide my identity. But I do expect a cookie session
| container, which Incognito mode _does_ advertise, to allow me
| to login to separate accounts without ending up logged into
| an account unexpectedly.
|
| The issue is not that tracking takes place. It's that the
| scope and duration of a session was _surprising_ in a way I
| didn 't expect from the UX, and it's not the most useful in
| situations such as the "make a window for a guest" situation
| described above. Getting this wrong also adds a security risk
| to those of us tasked with protecting other people's data via
| browser tools. I posted about it here because I think the
| behaviour will be a surprise to other people too; it should
| at least be more well known.
| ikiris wrote:
| Incognito was meant to protect sessions closed out. You're
| inventing a use case not sold and being upset that it
| doesn't work as if that is somehow their fault.
|
| I would expect the opposite behavior as you describe.
| fulafel wrote:
| Chrome even supports TLS MITM[1] in incognito. It doesn't
| save history over sessions but that seems to be the entirety
| of features against local adversaries.
|
| [1] https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/3504943?hl=en
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Incognito seems pretty clear on its startup page about what it
| does and does not do.
|
| > Chrome won't save the following information:
|
| > Your browsing history
|
| > Cookies and site data
|
| > Information entered in forms
|
| > Your activity might still be visible to:
|
| > Websites you visit
|
| > Your employer or school
|
| > Your internet service provider
| Closi wrote:
| I think one of the slight catch/nuance is that if you sign into
| Google in incognito mode, then your browsing history _will_ be
| tracked by Google across both the normal browser and incognito
| mode.
|
| The idea that Chrome won't track your browsing but Google might
| is more than a little incongruous/confusing for the average
| user IMO.
| notatoad wrote:
| i think "the average user" understands that chrome is not a
| website. the incognito page warns you that "websites you
| visit" might still track you, and that's exactly what's
| happening.
|
| there might be a few people who are confused, but i don't
| think you can make the argument that google has intentionally
| misled anybody here. the fact that some people _might_ be
| confused is not really google 's fault. a lot of people are
| confused about a lot of things every day, nobody needs to be
| liable for that other than the confused people.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _if you sign into Google in incognito mode, then your
| browsing history will be tracked by Google across both the
| normal browser and incognito mode._
|
| It'll track your searches on google.com, but not browsing
| history. Browser history is a function of signing into the
| browser, and you can't sign in an incognito window.
| Closi wrote:
| My understanding is that it's more than search results -
| Google will also track any site you visit that uses Google
| Ads, Google Analytics or the Google token which is most of
| the web, and link all this to your Google account on their
| backend.
| pdw wrote:
| That's the new text that was introduced a month or so ago. I'm
| not sure what the older version(s) said.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| It seems more reformatted than substantially changed.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxS75EWILNg
| jeroenhd wrote:
| While I'll gladly criticise Google when they introduce yet more
| privacy invasion, this lawsuit is a stupid money grab and I hope
| Google wins this fight.
|
| The entire lawsuit revolves around the idea that incognito
| ("private") browsing somehow implies that users aren't tracked at
| all, despite a clear, front-and-center warning that they still
| might be whenever you use it, purely based on the name alone.
|
| Someone saw that law makers were going after big tech and wanted
| in on the action. This lawsuit servers nothing but the lawyers.
| If Google loses this, ANY name that COULD be ambiguous could
| become grounds for a lawsuit for billions despite all warnings
| you might add to software.
| a5aAqU wrote:
| > The entire lawsuit revolves around the idea that incognito
| ("private") browsing somehow implies that users aren't tracked
| at all, despite a clear, front-and-center warning that they
| still might be whenever you use it, purely based on the name
| alone.
|
| One problem is that Google's Incognito Mode says this:
|
| > You've gone Incognito ... Your activity might still be
| visible to: Websites you visit, Your employer or school, Your
| internet service provider
|
| It isn't some ambiguous "websites" that are tracking you in
| Incognito Mode, _Google_ is tracking you on those websites
| (Google Analytics, etc.) and providing some of that data to the
| website owners. Users don 't understand how the Internet works,
| and it's misleading for Google to imply that it's only someone
| else that is doing the tracking.
| makomk wrote:
| Not only that, there's not really any way Google could avoid
| tracking people who're using Incognito mode, because that would
| require telling websites that Incognito mode is in use - which
| itself is a privacy issue and any method of detecting this ends
| up being widely abused to try and foce people not to use it. I
| can't imagine that letting Google and only Google have access
| to this information would go down any better.
| tedivm wrote:
| In theory Google could send the Do Not Track header to notify
| people they shouldn't track, but very few sites honor that
| (and Google Analytics certainly doesn't).
| sofixa wrote:
| Why should it, it doesn't "track" you, it only notes vague
| details and aggregates visitor statistics.
| orangecat wrote:
| And in practice it's just another bit of entropy to
| identify you.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If everyone in incognito sends that, it's probably very
| close to 0 bits.
| twirlock wrote:
| Google themselves continues to track users even in incognito
| mode, you massive dipshit.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Yeah, this stuff is so annoying. And then you have Reuters
| writing these type of clickbait headlines.
|
| When google sticks their BIG warning on incongnito EVERY time
| you launch it I thought that was silly. I guess not.
| randomsearch wrote:
| "Tesla Autopilot"
| justapassenger wrote:
| As someone technical, I agree. Especially with a bit that it'll
| serve mostly lawyers. But I won't be surprised if Google loses
| this lawsuit.
|
| If you aren't technical and understand difference between
| client and server, you may not know that while using one Google
| product, that claims to be incognito, other Google products are
| still tracking you. That's how internet is designed to work,
| but when one company controls clients and servers, it can get
| confusing to a general public.
| salawat wrote:
| As someone technical I disagree.
|
| I go out of my way not to use suggestive names like incognito
| because for the non-technical, it creates an expectation that
| will be relied upon by those that do not have the background
| understand what they are reading. "History-less", "local
| self-clean", "non-caching"... All of these names are accurate
| and far less suggestive than incognito. Incognito, like it or
| not, evokes the expectation that the browser is doing
| something to frustrate monitoring by other parties.
|
| Here be the wrath of the non-technical masses, and why the
| "luser" attitude is the most destructive, anti-social, and
| regressive attitude in tech.
|
| Our goal should be simplification of computing. Not the
| unceasing obfuscation and complexifying of it in some
| misguided attempt to create job security. I sincerely _hope_
| Google loses. Hard. It 's about damn time that the tech
| industry be held to a higher standard.
| oasisbob wrote:
| Non-caching isn't accurate either though, as the story
| about the man who found portions of an incognito view
| cached and displayed when he opened a game in front of
| other family members makes clear.
|
| IIRC, this was not considered a bug.
| mindslight wrote:
| I agree. There would be no issue if these were two separate
| companies - Google Inc (et al) would be doing their best to
| surveil you, while Chrome Inc would be doing their best to
| keep you safe from the prevailing conditions. But since
| it's a single entity offering you privacy and then _doing
| the exact opposite_ behind the scenes, it 's fraudulent.
| Understanding the technical details for how it works out
| the way it does just creates a blind spot where you miss
| the big picture, which is how Google managed to get
| themselves into this situation.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I agree that labeling should be simple and easy to
| understand, but people aren't going to understand "non-
| caching". They don't know what a cache is, other than that
| websites keep telling them to clear it. "Local self-clean"
| tells me absolutely nothing, other than that I can maybe
| use it to blow dust out of my PC.
|
| Google needed a name that fits on a button, translates
| easily and is recognisable. That's why we're using
| "browsers" instead of "HTML5 user agents", why we use
| "windows" instead of "top level control elements" and
| "sleep mode" instead of "ACPI power state S3". Using
| technically correct terms for the general public is exactly
| why people prefer dumbed down smartphones over complex
| traditional software.
|
| Since its inception, private mode has shown a screen that
| describes what it does or doesn't do whenever you open it.
| Had Google omitted that, and directed private mode directly
| to the user's home page, then perhaps I'd agree with you.
| In this case, I believe Google did the best they could to
| balance a technically correct explanation with something
| that's understandable by normal people and children.
|
| You can't blame everything on "the user shouldn't have to
| know better". An automatic gearbox won't put itself into
| reverse when you want it, but it's still called automatic.
| A juicer won't turn a spoon into metal juice. A vacuum
| cleaner won't work in a vacuum. All of this is perfectly
| logical if you're used to the context things are used in,
| but that context obviously doesn't need to be part of most
| products' naming.
|
| Misunderstanding naming and terminology is a sign that
| things need better explanations, but not the basis for a
| lawsuit in my opinion.
| zamfi wrote:
| > Incognito, like it or not, evokes the expectation that
| the browser is doing something to frustrate monitoring by
| other parties.
|
| And it does this: cookies are not shared or stored past the
| session, etc.
|
| The issue is that _some_ tracking can still be accomplished
| by websites, even while _other_ tracking is stymied.
|
| What do you call this?
| stan_rogers wrote:
| A lie by omission.
| estebarb wrote:
| It doesn't make sense at all. When I'm driving a car, let's
| say a Toyota, I expect that the car would protect me from its
| own failures (like: alerting me of oil or battery issues).
| But no way I would expect the car to avoid collisions with
| other Toyotas just because those are made by the same
| company.
|
| The same argument could apply to firearms (shouldn't harm the
| holder, so the same firearm model shouldn't hurt other
| holders of the same firearm model?) and a lot of things.
| a5aAqU wrote:
| Those analogies don't fit. Collisions between cars have
| nothing to do with the intention of Toyota. Toyota isn't in
| the business of causing cars to crash. Firearm
| manufacturers aren't really in the business of encouraging
| civilian gun users to shoot each other.
|
| Google's fundamental business model involves tracking
| people, so if you use one of their features that supposedly
| turns off tracking, it would be natural to assume that
| Google would stop all tracking.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| If you don't disclose your name at the hotel ( eg. Go
| incognito)
|
| That doesn't mean they can't track you when you steal
| something. You are not unidentifiable.
| a5aAqU wrote:
| Surfing the Web anonymously isn't a crime.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > other Google products are still tracking you. That's how
| internet is designed to work
|
| The internet was not designed to track us. Unfortunately,
| we've allowed it to happen.
| hiptobecubic wrote:
| "Incognito" isn't even that suggestive of a name. Compare that
| with e.g "Full Self Driving."
|
| If I go to a party incognito, I don't expect to leave no
| physical trace of my presence.
| a5aAqU wrote:
| > If I go to a party incognito, I don't expect to leave no
| physical trace of my presence.
|
| It's more like going to a party hosted by someone who makes a
| living by tracking you, where you were told that you are
| going to be incognito. But secretly, behind the scenes,
| you're still being tracked by the host of the party using a
| different technique.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Doesn't incognito mode warn you that you will be tracked.
|
| I always understood it to be about avoiding leaving details
| of your browsing on a shared computer.
|
| How does google block your ISP / website from doing their
| usual stuff (ie, google analytics etc).
| antattack wrote:
| "Incognito" is a very misleading name for this feature.
|
| from Google's English dictionary:
|
| adjective adjective: incognito (of a person)
| having one's true identity concealed.
|
| adverb adverb: incognito in a way that
| conceals one's true identity.
|
| noun noun: incognito; plural noun: incognitos
| an assumed or false identity.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Where does Googles money come from. Advertising budgets. Do
| advertisers get upset that Google is getting sued for
| misleading consumers. Perhaps the advertisers are wondering how
| Google might be misleading them (advertisers), too. Others
| might see Google's surveillance "business" as a "money grab".
| Its founders originally said that Google not fall victim to the
| influence of advertising. In the ultimate display of anti-
| integrity, they did the exact opposite and sold out 110%.
| Generally, consumers have not paid Google for anything and
| would have no reason to feel like lawyers are making a "money
| grab" to take a cut of such payments. Quite the contrary. Even
| a "money grab" by lawyers at Google's expense could be the
| closest thing to "justice" that consumers will ever get. Thats
| because discovery in these lawsuits often reveals bit by bit
| what goes on behind the scenes at Google. It is undisputed that
| the public wants to know how their data is being collected and
| what is being done with it. Discovery in any litigation, "money
| grab" or otherwise, is how they are learning the truth. Money
| grab, indeed. If "Big Tech" isn't a "stupid money grab", I
| don't know what is.
| thebraxton wrote:
| Would anti-slapp help in this case if the allegations are
| obviously false?
| ewzimm wrote:
| Next in line is Microsoft because the transparency effects in
| the upcoming Windows 11 do not actually make computer screens
| transparent as one might expect from windows.
|
| The focus seems to be the idea that Google knew about
| misconceptions and did not adequately address them, even with
| the prominent disclaimer. It seems like an arbitrary focus
| because there are so many other ways users misunderstand
| computers. I would think that EULAs would be a better target.
| Legislation requiring simpler summaries along the lines of
| Creative Commons licences would go a long way toward better
| informed users.
| estebarb wrote:
| Let's sue the USA? It's name implies that the states are
| united, but Hawaii and Alaska are not adjacent to the other
| states.
| pg_1234 wrote:
| Rubbish ... it's quite simple and and the criticism is
| totally reasonable.
|
| One single business (Google) promised the users anonymity on
| the client-side ... that same single business (Google) then
| broke that promise when their server-side tech worked around
| it.
|
| They LIED and should be punished.
|
| --------------------------------------------
|
| edit: I see people don't seem to have a counter argument and
| are just down-voting an uncomfortable truth ;-)
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Can anyone actually point to this supposed promise.
|
| The only incognito mode I've seen comes with an explicit
| DISCLAIMER that you WILL probably be tracked by the
| websites you visit, the ISP you use etc.
|
| The terms for using Chrome are pretty clear, as are youtube
| / gmail etc.
| ipaddr wrote:
| The wording is: 'these activities might be visible' to
| websites. But that is a lie. They are visible.
| deepfriedrice wrote:
| It's actually:
|
| Your activity might still be visible to: * Websites you
| visit * Your employer or school * Your internet service
| provider
|
| "might" makes sense because some or none of those may
| apply, depending on how you're using the browser.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I'm reminded of when the makers of Vitamin water argued in
| court that no reasonable person could interpret the name to
| mean that the drink is healthy, as opposed to the sugary drink
| that it really is.
| [deleted]
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Yeah the big screen makes it really clear. Everything is
| described as it is. The only stupid thing is the name, it
| should be called a "don't-save-my-history" (or "no-history")
| mode as incognito means something completely different.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| "Incognito" is fairly accurate, since identifying cookies,
| etc., stored in the "main" browser aren't sent to sites.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Google has _tons_ of valid issues with their privacy, but
| honestly I don 't think the ridiculousness of the Incognito Mode
| lawsuit has any merit.
|
| The description of Incognito Mode was always very clear that _the
| client_ wasn 't tracking you, but servers could still track you.
| The fact that Google has another product, Google Analytics, that
| they offer any website developer that want to put it on their
| site, does not mean their original description of Incognito Mode
| was inaccurate.
|
| Especially as a technologist, it irks me when I see journalists
| deliberately obfuscating what actually goes on with Incognito
| Mode.
| pydry wrote:
| A more accurate front and center warning that servers including
| those run by google can and will try to track you.
|
| Wasnt what they wrote though.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I actually think that's _less_ accurate. Google on the server
| side isn 't in _any_ preferential position, better or worse,
| than any other server-side analytics.
|
| That's why I think this lawsuit is such bullshit, in that
| many of the "recommendations" in these comments are saying
| Google server technologies should specifically get called out
| (or worse, notified when a user is using Incognito Mode,
| which actually _would_ be a gross privacy violation), when
| the whole point is that Chrome 's Incognito Mode isn't any
| different that Safari or Firefox's Private Browsing, so why
| should Chrome call out something about Google's specific
| server-side analytics?
| impulser_ wrote:
| But the warning does say that:
|
| Your activity might still be visible to:
|
| Websites you visit
|
| Your employer or school
|
| Your internet service provider
| ipaddr wrote:
| Might be is a lie. Are visible is accurate.
| foerbert wrote:
| I might be inclined to agree somewhat, except for the situation
| described in the article.
|
| It's one thing if somebody raised internal concerns about
| possible misconceptions and it was ultimately decided that it
| wasn't likely.
|
| It's another issue when those concerns are important enough to
| reach the CEO of Google-sized company, and that CEO then
| decides not to do anything lest they attract any attention.
| This is particularly true when dealing with something like a
| privacy mode.
| EnderWT wrote:
| https://archive.is/EaQ69
| [deleted]
| monkeyfacebag wrote:
| Reading through the article and the comments here, the facts
| aren't clear to me. Does Google itself track the behavior of its
| users in incognito mode? Some comments here allege that it does
| while others suggest this complaint is overblown.
| bmicraft wrote:
| Chrome does not track you, websites will continues their scummy
| practises of js tracking - google not excluded
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| There weren't actually any issues with Incognito Mode. It was a
| manufactured crisis from people who wanted to claim that
| Incognito Mode was misleading about hiding internet activity from
| upstream network providers when it clearly explains otherwise on
| the Incognito Mode new tab.
|
| I don't even know what the Incognito Mode opponents even wanted.
| Built-in free VPN service? Total removal of Incognito Mode?
|
| Google didn't have any nefarious intent or actions in this. I
| don't see why it would be wrong for them to downplay exaggerated
| allegations.
| rvnx wrote:
| Nice idea, a Google-powered VPN to "protect your privacy" (from
| competitors eyes).
| chrononaut wrote:
| > I don't even know what the Incognito Mode opponents even
| wanted. Built-in free VPN service? Total removal of Incognito
| Mode?
|
| Agreed. I think this is a case of individual users deriving
| their own set of functional requirements and assumptions on
| what it means to be in "Incognito mode", which many people will
| have a differing opinion on, rather than a specific issue with
| the functionality provided by the browser.
|
| If it can't be called Incognito mode, I am not sure what other
| positioning or branding can be applied. There is merit for the
| current feature set, and gating those features until a
| significantly high bar is met seems unreasonable.
| akersten wrote:
| Yeah, the plaintiffs really need to lose this case. "It
| doesn't do what I imagined it did based on my uneducated
| misinterpretation of a brand name and refusal to read what
| the product clearly states every time I use it" is such a
| horrible basis for potential litigation that it boggles the
| mind it was allowed to proceed. Next up they'll be suing
| AstroGlide because applying the lube doesn't turn them into
| roller-skating cosmonauts.
| DelightOne wrote:
| "We change the way we track you"-mode?
| bestnameever wrote:
| Incognito mode has always been to me just a way to prevent the
| local client from maintaining my history but I also recall that
| was the way it was marketed when it first came out. Tracking
| wasn't really on my mind at that point.
|
| I wonder if some differences in perspectives are the result of
| when you first became familiar with the feature.
| howinteresting wrote:
| It is reasonable to assume that you won't be tracked by _Google_
| when you 're incognito in Google's browser.
|
| Edit: Here's some _empirical evidence_ :
| https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/private-web-browsing-not-as-...
| samstave wrote:
| AFAIK; incognito ONLY prevents whatever you type in the URL bar
| from hitting your local browsing history.
|
| Its used to hide visits to sites from your machine from others
| who actually might look at your machine. This is all.
| bryan0 wrote:
| Absurd how this is getting downvoted when the obvious
| assumption by non-technical users is that if "Chrome" isn't
| tracking you then "Google" isn't tracking either. And the the
| simple fact is that Google shouldn't track you if you're using
| incognito mode on its browser.
| akersten wrote:
| > And the the simple fact is that Google shouldn't track you
| if you're using incognito mode on its browser.
|
| What is absurd is seeking a remedy where Google is compelled
| to further couple their ecosystem so that now only Chrome
| users are exempt from server-side tracking, but Firefox
| Private Browsing or Edge InPrivate continue to be server-side
| tracked, because these plaintiffs suddenly understand how
| private browsing works when the browser doesn't say "Google
| Chrome" on it.
|
| It's a cash grab. If they wanted a remedy where a user truly
| had control over their privacy and could turn off server-side
| tracking at the flick of a client-side switch, they'd lobby
| for privacy-positive legislation. They just see easy money
| here because they think they can confuse the courts into a
| muddled make-believe interpretation of how webservers and
| user agents work.
| dylan604 wrote:
| No, it is not. They clearly tell you this when you switch to
| Icognito mode.
| howinteresting wrote:
| I as a technical user know that the assumption is wrong, and
| that to achieve the desired properties one needs something
| like the Tor Browser.
|
| But it is still _reasonable_ to make that assumption.
|
| Chrome benefits from its association with Google. This means
| that Google should also deal with the consequences of that
| association.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| What specifically do you argue Google should have done
| here? I can't think of a name that could describe the
| feature without potentially misleading people who don't
| understand it; the fundamental problem is that people don't
| realize there's a difference between "privacy from other
| people on my computer" and "privacy from other sites on the
| Internet". Should they have just refused to build a privacy
| mode at all because they can't provide all forms of
| privacy?
| bryan0 wrote:
| > What specifically do you argue Google should have done
| here?
|
| Google should stop tracking users when they're in
| incognito mode.
| Closi wrote:
| Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head.
|
| The idea you can be in Google Browsers private browsing
| mode that says Google Browser won't track you but in
| reality Google will still track you in that mode given
| the chance is a huge piece of slight of hand for the
| average users.
| chrononaut wrote:
| > Google should stop tracking users when they're in
| incognito mode.
|
| Google (the Chrome development team) should not track
| users when they're in incognito mode if they even do.
|
| However, Google (the company and its services) should not
| care whether a user is using incognito mode or not;
| Otherwise you're asking for the implementation of
| additional functionality beyond what incognito mode is
| intended to provide (ala DNT, etc), and making it
| specific to only Google, and not other websites, would be
| a strange position.
| bryan0 wrote:
| It's crazy how we've gotten to the point where a clear
| and ethical implementation of privacy features is now
| seen as "strange"
| chrononaut wrote:
| I didn't imply that a clear and ethical implementation of
| privacy features (or "tracking users" as what you were
| previously referring to) _in general_ is now seen as
| strange; My point is why would should that implementation
| of not tracking users _only_ apply to Google? Having it
| only apply to Google and its services would be strange,
| and just as confusing to users as the current situation
| you 're expressing frustration about.
|
| In your model are you satisfied with Google still
| applying its tracking techniques to Microsoft Edge users
| in Microsoft's incognito mode?
| Jensson wrote:
| Incognito mode is a standard browser feature, there is no
| reason to believe that Googles browser would work
| differently than others browsers. Safari calls it
| "Private Browsing", should that also be illegal since
| Apple still tracks you on websites you visit even if you
| have it on? It is insane to assume that every company
| that has a browser with this feature would sync it with
| all their website to disable tracking when it is on.
|
| And often times that wouldn't even be what you want.
| Often you go incognito to log into another account
| because it creates a fresh browser instance. Doing that
| would be impossible if it didn't enable any form of
| tracking, logging in requires them to track you. Making a
| sensible way where incognito somehow prevented all
| tracking while still being functional isn't possible.
| howinteresting wrote:
| In that case, Chrome should lose all Google branding.
|
| I'm sick of megacorps reaping all the benefits of
| branding but none of the downsides.
| howinteresting wrote:
| At the very least, say something like "Websites,
| including Google, will keep tracking you". The existing
| text isn't nearly as explicit about the fact that
| _Google_ will keep tracking you as it should be.
| josefx wrote:
| I just love modern day marketing:
|
| * unlimited: not actually unlimited
|
| * Full self driving: not actually fully self driving
|
| * incognito: not even trying to be incognito
|
| As long as you have a paragraph explaining it you could
| bottle piss and sell it as fresh spring water.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| But its the everydays Joe's fault for not knowing exactly
| how and when proffesionals with a phD and decades
| experience are misleading him
| dylan604 wrote:
| I really don't understand the confusion.
|
| Incognito prevents the browser from remembering the things
| you do locally to the browser itself. The browser, any
| browser, cannot control what the server does. The browser
| cannot block whatever javascript you have allowed it to
| run. All it can do is block javascript. You log into a
| server while in Incognito doesn't mean the server won't
| know you logged in (wtf?).
|
| Icognito basically means your SO won't see your browser
| history, and that's about it.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Complex things are rarely accurately defined in a word or
| two.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| When I ask my laweyer how to avoid jail, he also makes
| sure to mislead me as much as possible with various
| gotchas that 'everyone should know'
| rastafang wrote:
| But it would have been fairly easy to not use words with
| opposite meaning of what you mean?
| rastafang wrote:
| 1984 has become reality (most predictions in the book), we
| need a new goal.
|
| https://www.planetebook.com/1984/
| Jensson wrote:
| Setting browser to incognito means the browser doesn't
| recognize who you are and doesn't announce that to sites.
| The rest of your examples are just scams, but browser
| example has a reasonable interpretation. There is no
| reasonable interpretation where "unlimited" means 20 GB a
| month, or "Full Self Driving" means "You have to be as
| focused on the road and have your hands on the wheel at
| every second as this isn't legally self driving".
| rastafang wrote:
| That Google is tracking everything you do on the browser is
| the problem here, not incognito.
| jgwil2 wrote:
| Some people with non-technical backgrounds probably did make
| this assumption. Whether it's _reasonable_ is, I suppose,
| debatable.
| chrononaut wrote:
| > It is reasonable to assume that you won't be tracked by
| Google when you're incognito in Google's browser.
|
| Given the existing functionality of incognito mode, what would
| you call its set of features that it provides? Is it a naming /
| branding issue?
|
| I believe it should be possible to provide these set of
| features (or browser operating mode) without going to the
| extent of not being tracked by Google (the company and its
| services), even though the ability to do the latter seamlessly
| would be beneficial.
| howinteresting wrote:
| I think any of the following would be acceptable:
|
| * Chrome sends a signal to google.com around not tracking in
| incognito mode (Chrome already does all sorts of magic on
| Google sites, this would be a small addition)
|
| * Incognito mode has a clear warning that Google specifically
| will keep tracking you
|
| * Chrome loses all Google branding
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| All of those are horrible ideas:
|
| 1. So you're saying _only Google_ is the publisher that
| specifically gets notified when you use incognito mode.
| _That_ actually would be a real, concerning privacy
| violation in my opinion.
|
| 2. But the whole point is that it is _not_ just Google who
| "specifically keeps tracking you". It's any server software
| out there that keeps logs. The warning Incognito Mode has
| now is much more correct and accurate that some sort of
| "Google specific" one would be.
|
| 3. That's just dumb. It's a Google product, why shouldn't
| it have Google branding.
| goelectyourself wrote:
| Wow. Nearly every comment here is from someone who doesn't see
| this as a problem. Suspicious. Manipulative much?
|
| Incognito implies exactly that to the layman. Even with a warning
| about specifics. We had a sense that Google is acting in good
| conscious when incognito and it was the opposite, AND they have
| tried to hide it.
|
| Google saved our incognito searches to our Google profiles.
| Period. They misrepresented a product they built and have earned
| these consequences.
|
| It's not just Chrome incognito either. Google has acted shady
| time and time again with unfair business practices. Like YouTube,
| photos, mail, and drive account lockouts with no options to
| recover, because "we investigated our decision and we say we were
| correct. We're not going to tell you what you did wrong either,
| and you can't get your data back."
|
| Google needs to pay for their misbehavior.
| cjsplat wrote:
| I guess I'm not sure what incognito means to a layman - I'm
| stuck with knowing the actual definition.
|
| If I do something "incognito" it doesn't make _your_ camera not
| work if you take my picture. At the most it may it a little
| harder to identify me.
|
| In recognition of the ongoing battle between celebrities and
| paparazzi, perhaps it should be called "floppy-hat" or "bad-
| wig" mode.
| kahrl wrote:
| No. Literally front and center. Do we have to design everything
| for the least common denominator?
|
| You've gone Incognito Now you can browse privately, and other
| people who use this device won't see your activity. However,
| downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved.
| Learn more
|
| Chrome won't save the following information:
|
| Your browsing history
|
| Cookies and site data
|
| Information entered in forms
|
| Your activity might still be visible to:
|
| Websites you visit
|
| Your employer or school
|
| Your internet service provider
|
| Block third-party cookies
|
| When on, sites can't use cookies that track you across the web.
| Features on some sites may break.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-25 23:02 UTC)