[HN Gopher] Ever used Google Chrome in incognito mode? You could...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Ever used Google Chrome in incognito mode? You could be entitled to
       up to $5k
        
       Author : RadixDLT
       Score  : 53 points
       Date   : 2024-08-29 21:44 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (bivens.plaintip.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (bivens.plaintip.com)
        
       | RadixDLT wrote:
       | https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Wilso...
        
       | drbig wrote:
       | Lemme preempt: this is for US citizens only? I assume so. Funny
       | how that whole globalization thing is asymmetric.
        
         | BoppreH wrote:
         | Yes.
         | 
         | > Are You Eligible?
         | 
         | > -Used Google Incognito mode between June 1, 2016 - December
         | 1, 2023
         | 
         | > -Expected browsing activity to remain private
         | 
         | > -Did not always consent to Google tracking
         | 
         | > -Age 18+
         | 
         | > -US Resident
        
           | anigbrowl wrote:
           | Resident is not the same as citizen.
        
         | mulmen wrote:
         | Globalization is a trade policy. US courts still only have
         | jurisdiction in the US.
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | Laws are local. You're welcome to file a lawsuit in your
         | country.
        
       | chungy wrote:
       | If I was presiding over this case, I'd throw it out. It's never
       | been misleading about what it is: it doesn't save stuff to your
       | hard disk. That says nothing about remote servers.
        
         | conductr wrote:
         | Yes I tend to agree although the word "incognito" conveys
         | something that it is not, so one could argue the very premise
         | of it is misleading
        
           | chungy wrote:
           | I suppose if you don't read. If you open an incognito tab you
           | are greeted with this text:
           | 
           | "You've gone Incognito Others who use this device won't see
           | your activity, so you can browse more privately. This won't
           | change how data is collected by websites you visit and the
           | services they use, including Google. Downloads, bookmarks and
           | reading list items will be saved. Learn more"
        
             | conductr wrote:
             | That's why I tend to agree. IANAL and while this seems
             | pretty simple for me to understand, I'm not certain that
             | laypeople wouldn't also expect full anonymity based on some
             | other aspect of the service and I'm not sure if this has
             | been stated so succinctly since back in 2016. I think
             | there's an argument to be made and if so, the case
             | shouldn't been just tossed out without allowing them to
             | make it
        
             | autoexec wrote:
             | > If you open an incognito tab you are greeted with this
             | text: "You've gone Incognito Others who use this device
             | won't see your activity, so you can browse more privately.
             | This won't change how data is collected by websites you
             | visit and the services they use, including Google.
             | Downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved.
             | Learn more"
             | 
             | They edited that because of the lawsuit.
             | 
             | Before the lawsuit what it said was:
             | 
             | "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"
             | 
             | I think it's understandable that someone would take "you
             | can browse privately" to mean "We aren't tracking what you
             | do"
        
           | silisili wrote:
           | Agreed. Not a legal scholar so don't know how much that
           | matters, if at all.
           | 
           | Though I was still disappointed to find out it was being
           | used. I use incognito quite often to search for something I
           | think may be questionable. No I don't need it super secret
           | locked from the police, but it's not something I necessarily
           | want tied to my identity/interests/Google account in any
           | form.
        
         | inetknght wrote:
         | > _It 's never been misleading about what it is_
         | 
         | I would argue "incognito" is misleading when you're not
         | actually incognito to the servers. You're still tracked by many
         | numerous data points that defeat the concept of being
         | incognito.
        
           | KeplerBoy wrote:
           | Doesn't the incognito splash screen say exactly that?
           | 
           | As far as I recall it was always pretty clear about not doing
           | anything apart from not saving your browser history.
        
           | TacticalCoder wrote:
           | I always thought of the incognito mode as: _" I can surf from
           | incognito mode while on a friend's computer and my friend
           | won't get my credentials / history / etc."_
        
         | peppertree wrote:
         | "full self driving" vibes.
        
       | sltkr wrote:
       | It's hilarious that the sketchy lawyers behind this site demand
       | to know the "[..] details on the nature of your searches,
       | websites visited and or purchases made [in Incognito mode]".
        
         | dsizzle wrote:
         | Similar energy lol: https://theonion.com/ob-gyn-assures-woman-
         | he-respects-doctor...
        
         | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
         | I watched hella porn
        
         | djbusby wrote:
         | Torrents of copyrighted material.
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | In theory you should only get paid if you were actually harmed.
         | For example, I didn't apply for the Sony PS3 Linux class action
         | because I never installed Linux so I never lost anything when
         | they took Linux away. Getting back to this case, I suspect
         | virtually no one can list specific harms due to incognito mode
         | being slightly less incognito than they thought.
        
           | autoexec wrote:
           | > I didn't apply for the Sony PS3 Linux class action because
           | I never installed Linux so I never lost anything when they
           | took Linux away.
           | 
           | I'd argue that you lost the ability to install linux on your
           | device. You may have never made the choice to install it, but
           | the option was yours, Sony advertised that it was an option
           | you'd have if you gave them your money and then they took
           | that from you after they got your cash.
           | 
           | That said, I would agree that the people most harmed should
           | be the most compensated.
        
       | ronald_petty wrote:
       | Are we talking about Chrome incognito mode? What is Google's
       | Incognito "private browsing" per the website. Details matter.
        
         | joatmon-snoo wrote:
         | Yep, it's Chrome's incognito mode. The lawsuit describes it as
         | "private browsing".
        
       | laweijfmvo wrote:
       | Nah, you'll probably get $3.84 and the law firm handling it will
       | get several hundred million.
        
       | tedunangst wrote:
       | What's the "down to" amount?
        
         | BlindEyeHalo wrote:
         | $0 because this case has not yet gone to court.
        
       | skobes wrote:
       | In case it isn't clear, this case hasn't reached any settlement.
       | A complaint has been filed, but any entitlements of class members
       | are entirely hypothetical at this stage.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-08-29 23:00 UTC)