Unless I am reading this incorrectly, I think this paragraph better summerizes the article versus the headline:<p>"In this case, Google is accused of relying on pieces of its code within websites that use its analytics and advertising services to scrape users’ supposedly private browsing history and send copies of it to Google’s servers. Google makes it seem like private browsing mode gives users more control of their data, Amanda Bonn, a lawyer representing users, told Koh. In reality, “Google is saying there’s basically very little you can do to prevent us from collecting your data, and that’s what you should assume we’re doing,” Bonn said."<p>It doesn't seem like the complaint is that Chrome collects data on you in "Incognito" mode, rather that websites (e.g. Google Analytics) still collect on you in "Incognito" mode.
People often defend companies with explanations of how the world is, when common folk often expect (or just want) the world to behave differently.<p>Is it unreasonable to want, or even expect, an incognito window to disable all forms of tracking?<p>Wouldn't the world be far better if a phone alerted me to an app scanning my local area network or contacts? Or if I got warnings when it took such actions?<p>I think us tech folks need to, collectively, stop defending companies reasoning and explanations for the world <i>they</i> created, and start standing with and for a world which matches common folks expectations. It really seems like a better world.<p>---<p>EDIT: Ask what the layperson would think tracking is! Imagining the answer is pretty simple "a website [or the web at large] learning or remembering anything about me." If we start from there, rather than the mumbo-jumbo thrown at us, we can make progress.
I hate tracking as much as the next person, but a simple reading of the "You've gone incognito" screen ought to make obvious that its primary purpose is to hide your activity from others who use the same device. It's literally written on the first line:<p>"Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity."<p>It goes on to list other technical specifics about what is not saved, but those are pretty much just sub-points. I'm not sure it's fair to expect Incognito to do something it's not meant to do.
I read through the original complaint[1] and had a few observations that made me scratch my head.<p>1. All other browsers' private/incognito modes behave the same. Then why do they expect Chrome to behave differently? Is the complaint about Google Analytics collecting data, or about Chrome making false promises?<p>2. It never explains how the information sent to Google Analytics can be tied to your person. A public IP address is generally not good enough. Forensically maybe, when combined with ISP logs, but not routinely at scale.<p>3. It asserts that Google is using this information "nefariously", without going into detail: "This does not mean that Google does not utilize and/or monetize this data in any way. Google does. It merely changes the form of storage after the data has served Google’s nefarious uses."<p>4. It points out that this kind of information is so valuable to Google that they run a program where they pay people to observe their behavior. But, the whole complaint is about how Google collects that information already. Why have a separate program where they pay users?<p>5. Classifying visiting a website in incognito mode as "confidential communication" is a bit of a stretch, but that's the centerpiece of their complaint.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.classaction.org/media/brown-et-al-v-google-llc-et-al.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.classaction.org/media/brown-et-al-v-google-llc-e...</a><p>Disclosure: I work for Google, but not in Chrome or GA. The opinions expressed in this post are mine.
Next: Judge disturbed by the fact that Verizon still sees what number you called when you use a throw away phone.<p>I don't get why on HN such clickbait articles get upvoted to the front page.
It literally says when you open Incognito:<p>Chrome won't save the following information:<p>- Your browsing history<p>- Cookies and site data<p>- Information entered in forms<p>Your activity might still be visible to:<p>- Websites you visit<p>- Your employer or school<p>- Your internet service provider
I honestly think that the term "tracking" is too benign. If I followed someone around, taking notes on them as I went, so that I could try to sell them something, I would be called a <i>stalker</i>.<p>But do it online and it's just "tracking".
Incognito is simply a poor name for this as it infers the identity is being concealed.
Should be something more along the lines of 'unaccounted' or 'unrecorded' even 'off-the-record'.<p>If I go incognito I expect my identity to be concealed, if I am unrecorded I expect my identity to be obvious but for a trail of my actions to be off-the-record.
What a poorly edited article. Two typos in one sentence. No space after the previous sentence and a missing "of".<p>"Google has become a target antitrust complaints in the last year..."<p>I realize I may sound like an ass, but I find that very distracting. My eyes are drawn to typos and it takes me out of the flow.
Kids today are too young to know that Incognito/Private browsing was invented as a solution to clearing your history/cookies every time you looked at an Adult website so your parents wouldn't find out.<p>This feature is literally just a way of preventing porn from showing up in your URL autofill when your mom comes to look something up on the computer when you're not around.
I'm concerned that judges make statements about topics they are clearly not prepared to do so. In how many areas they intervene without proper knowledge?<p>Incognito was always a way to avoid storing visits and sessions locally (mostly for... Prevent family to see your Christmas gifts).
My own comment deeper in the tree made me realize something, so I'm restating it at the top level. Basically the central misconception here, that Google is more than happy to leave unclear, is that Incognito Mode has ever been incognito. The only party not gathering data about your "incognito" browsing is you, i.e. the only party to whom that browsing is <i>incognito</i> (unknown), is you. (Oh and anyone who were to use your computer and your login to view your browsing history; that's the flimsy pretext that prevents it from being a complete lie.)<p>In my other comment I joked that since you're basically wandering around forgetting where you've been, it should be called Forgetful Mode, and the icon should be, instead of a spy, an old man hunched over with a cane and little dots and curliques surrounding his head indicating a diffuse cognitive state. He doesn't remember where he's been! But don't worry, his caretakers will remember.
From the article:<p>> In this case, Google is accused of relying on pieces of its code within websites that use its analytics and advertising services to scrape users’ supposedly private browsing history and send copies of it to Google’s servers.<p>From the Chrome Incognito window:<p>> Chrome won't save the following information:<p>> - Your browsing history<p>> - [etc]<p>> Your activity might still be visible to:<p>> - Websites you visit<p>> - [etc]<p>I could see an argument being made from a user's point of view that if Chrome says it's not <i>saving</i> your browsing history, but it turns out <i>within one incognito session</i> it <i>is</i> saving your browser history <i>and providing it to sites that use Google Analytics</i>, that this would be misleading.<p>Of course, if the back button didn't work in incognito mode, that would also be a problem from a usability standpoint.
> Broome’s attempt to downplay the privacy concerns by pointing out that the federal court system’s own website uses Google services ended up backfiring.<p>> The judge demanded an explanation “about what exactly Google does,” while voicing concern that visitors to the court’s website are unwittingly disclosing information to the company. “I want a declaration from Google on what information they’re collecting on users to the court’s website, and what that’s used for,” Koh told the company’s lawyers.<p>Someone had a bad day at court :)
To non technicals the 'cool one word' branding seems to be misleading at times. The crazies pushing the limits of Tesla's autopilot & such. It's <i>mostly</i> autopilot from what I hear, then again I've never heard of airplanes landing on actual autopilot or avoiding birds - the assumptions seem to be built in with catchy names unfortunately. Is it a branding or human problem....
My understanding was that the "incognito" mode in Google Chrome (or "private browsing" in Firefox) would prevent data like cookies or saved passwords from remaining on the physical computer when the window was closed. I had always thought that the primary use-case was to prevent data from being stored on a shared computer, for instance in a computer lab or a library.<p>In my opinion, it sounds like the judge is thinking of something else entirely.
> Broome’s attempt to downplay the privacy concerns by pointing out that the federal court system’s own website uses Google services ended up backfiring.<p>I'm amazed Google's lawyer was amateur hour enough to go with an "everyone does it" approach here. He proved Google is a monopoly and that the court using their services poses a risk to the public.
Indeed it would be good to know what incognito sees and what it does not. If I look for a google query in incognito more, I get prompted with a consent pop up.<p>Look like it does not see you oauth accounts, search queries are not saved, there is no history logged but you can go back in browser history.<p>I have simply started using opera with the integrated vpn. It is good enough for my browsing.<p>Also sites like airbnb and skyscanner kinda force you to accept cookies. Tested results back and forth.they They def know who you are.
Only solution so far is vpn.
> Andrew Schapiro, a lawyer for Google, argued the company’s privacy policy “expressly discloses” its practices<p>At what point does society strip blanket privacy policies of any actual standing
Google Chrome UI: "We aren't tracking you". Google Terms: "We are absolutely tracking you". Google: Fingers were crossed; doesn't count.
odd since you know it says that as a warning on every icognito page what the purpose of it is, it is so disassociate history being logged locally so other people looking at your browser history cant see what you did. noone said its not being tracked. icognito from the perspective or your locally preserved state in the browser, not anyone elses...
I learned it the hard way that Chrome adds DNT headers in incognito mode. I naively tried to debug a Mixpanel issue in incognito mode since I use a few privacy extensions in normal mode. I got a little mad that my code was still not working then I realized that everything is fine, tracking is blocked thanks to DNT this time :)
Dumb question: Do browsers actually notify websites when the user is in incognito mode?<p>Or is it just presenting the user as a blank state with no cookies or other local season data?<p>I’ve always assumed the latter. So I’ve never assumed any implicit agreement that websites would turn off logging when I showed up in incognito mode.
"Incognito" just means "in disguise". But think about a halo-ween party. If you see a guy wearing a horse's head in the kitchen then later in the living room you'd guess he's the same guy.
Two biggest understood uses of Incognito mode:<p>1) When you don't want your browser history to embarrassingly be discovered by others who share your computer or screen<p>2) read news articles when your free-reading quota (e.g. 5 articles per month) expires
when this tool is compromised, as most are with time, they've got my calendar, 20 years of e-mail history, cellphone location history, website history, youtube video history. It's true they probably know more about me and my future trajectory than I do. No wonder I can't get a callback! But on the real... time to rethink le free web model if it isn't too late.
Private-mode browsing has to just go away. It has always been misrepresented about what it does. Even the one, narrow use case it was originally intended for -- hiding browsing history from other users of the computer -- it never did a very good job at. Its continued presence confuses and misleads people, as this article demonstrates. I imagine the only reason it sticks around is so developers don't have to face the "bad optics" of removing a so-called privacy feature.
I, for one, would not mind receiving whatever percentage of $5000 is left over after the lawyers take their cut. Google definitely owes me at least that!
As he should be. It's not about what Google is able to do, it is all about what they should be allowed to do and clearly they are disrespecting users wishes in spite of pretty explicit signals.
Google shot themselves in the foot by being corrupt. Claiming incognito protects you while the google analytics and google's other services can run around collecting your info without any issues.
You don't give users a false sense of security. That's how your buildings catch fire, literally. Some do fantasize about doing it. Read enough forums to see that pattern emerging. I'd think that would be a humbling experience if a justified attack was executed on google buildings and server farms all around the planet. I would laugh my ass off from the karma google is getting alone from that. If coordinated correctly no lives will be lost either. Not promoting it, pointing out it's possible.<p>Companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft and facebook needs to be forced to split up. Section 230 is also overdue for a rewrite.
The recent example is facebook just blocked news in Australia. Just like that.