People still don’t know what the incognito mode does, huh
The name is blatantly misleading. The very definition of the term “incognito” means having one’s true identity concealed, so I can’t blame anyone with comprehension of the English language for being misled at a glance. However, like anyone else here, I do not expect this to lead to any actual progress toward more privacy.
I strongly agree, the name should be something that better reflects what it does. Evidently, many people are being misled by it.
Maybe that could be grounds for a lawsuit. After all, deliberate manipulation of users to leech as much data as possible is certainly not something Google is afraid to do, so it stands to reason that this is what they’re doing with incognito mode, too.
The names of the similar features in other browsers aren’t much better but most browsers are pretty clear about what it protects against and what it does not protect against.
Chrome mentions that it doesn’t hide you from the websites you go to on the incognito window new tab page and their documention:
https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95464
They’ve also had mentions that it doesn’t protect against everything since at least 2013:
Going incognito doesn’t affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software.
Edge mentions it on their InPrivate window new tab page and their documentation:
Firefox mentions it on their private browsing window new tab page and their documentation (and highlights it actually):
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/private-browsing-use-firefox-without-history
Safari doesn’t mention it in either place from what I can tell:
https://support.apple.com/guide/safari/browse-privately-ibrw1069/mac
True, but it also explicitly states on the incognito new tab page that it doesn’t prevent tracking. Personally, I don’t see Google losing this case.
Does it not add to your history so you can search sketchy or embarrassing things? I never thought they weren’t tracking my rewatches of BLACK MEAT ANAL HEAT 6, just that the phrase wouldn’t show up in my search history or recently visited. I’m not going to NOT rewatch a classic like that, but I don’t need it popping up in my history when I’m about to give a presentation
Exactly that. It doesn’t save any history, and that’s pretty much it.
What does it do?
It opens a separate session in the browser and prevents saving any cookies, history or other state locally when you close it. Doesn’t change a blessed thing on the other end of the connection.
Most browsers even tell the users that, very clearly. I hate Google with a burning passion, but this lawsuit is just dumb.
To be fair most of the class action lawsuits these days are “dumb.” It’s important to still fight these or else nothing will change. It’s a check valve on businesses and the government to prevent them from being completely unaccountable and harming entire populations of people.
They named the feature incorrectly, then they only updated the language and explained it properly after people got in trouble or hurt because they thought it meant something different. That to me sounds like malice or at least negligence to me.
Yes the suit sounds dumb initially. However if you think about how the average person might have been misled this does sound like Google needs to be held accountable.
Also in the past I’ve observed that the Google indexing bot will visit a site right after a Chrome user visits the site. So if Googlebot knows nothing about abc123.com and then a Chrome user visits it, then suddenly Googlebot is crawling the site. I wonder if that happens when the Chrome user is in incognito mode?
Adding to what the other person said.
The main purpose of it is if you’re sharing the computer with someone else. You don’t need to worry about your kink searches showing up in the search history (or whatever you don’t want other people in the household to know about).
This isn’t about every website tracking you regardless. Chrome kept logging browsing information even in incognito mode.
It’s a closed browser from a data mining company, of course it kept on mining the user. The “The user didn’t want this tracked” is probably juicy information to mark what they were looking at with.
This will be an interesting case.
“Your honor, our terms of service clearly state that we watch every user jerk off, and they consented to it”
It really shouldn’t be that interesting
How is it not? If there is good proof, that’s interesting. Is the judge and jury able to rule well with that information? How does Google respond if found guilty? Proof, verdict, response, each has interest to privacy.
deleted by creator
Its still quite a bit. Just because they are worth 1.66T doesn’t mean they have that to spend
It’s not about the money, it’s about sending a message
But it would get publicity, further open up a conversation about privacy, and change (some) users’ minds.
Removed by mod
Fuck Google
I don’t like any of the big brand name companies TBH… Maybe Costco n that’s it
Costco is the 🐐
I feel like Costco isn’t what it used to be. Deals aren’t as good
But, where are deals good as they used to be tho anymore?
U Kno what I mean?
So brave.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Monday, a California judge denied Google’s request for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by users alleging the company illegally invaded the privacy of millions of people.
The people suing Google say that occurred because Google’s cookies, analytics, and tools in apps continued to track internet browsing activity even after users activated Incognito mode Chrome, or other similar features like Safari’s private browsing expecting a certain level of privacy.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers pointed to statements in the Chrome privacy notice, Privacy Policy, Incognito Splash Screen, and Search & Browse Privately Help page about how incognito mode limits the information stored or how people can control the information they share, writing, “Taken as a whole, a triable issue exists as to whether these writings created an enforceable promise that Google would not collect users’ data while they browsed privately.”
Finally, given the nature of Google’s data collection, the Court is satisfied that money damages alone are not an adequate remedy.
Injunctive relief is necessary to address Google’s ongoing collection of users’ private browsing data.”
The lawsuit was filed in 2020, seeking “at least” $5 billion in damages, and as reported by Mike Swift for MLex, the ruling was not entirely surprising, as the judge had indicated she’d do so, but it is a big one as it moves the case closer toward settlement or a trial.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Removed by mod
Probably because it’s not newsworthy as it’s systematic, for instance Facebook and Googke have had to pay ever ibcreasing fines for GDPR violation, now exceeding a billion dollar, and get in line with the regulation, or get foebidden to opperate in the EU.
They have been getting those fines for years with a delay of a couple of months to pay them. They would have been barred from the EU long ago if they had not paid them.
It’s like the governments benefits over these big tech companies breaking the laws set by the government.
Lol you make it look like the government is keeping the money. The population is benefitting from fines imposed on companies violating the law, what’s odd about this?
We’re talking billions of dollars, where is that spent? I’m no expert on the topic but I’ve yet to see any significant improvement from the massive amount of money the states and federal government takes from these companies. I would consider giving it back to the users who had their privacy broken would be the right move, for justice, but I have not heard that ever happening on scales like this. Redbull did like $15 gift cards for their issues with “Redbull gives you wings”, but haven’t seen that with big tech…I really hope you can provide more information and enlighten me.
There have been many millions of dollar fines over the years and many communities, roadways and overall infrastructure can be improved - which our taxes are supposed to pay for.
I believe you should Google that kind of stuff instead of trying to make it a debate in comments. There is no single right move about what to do with the money, but governments are spending billions (including those from these fines) to build their countries https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Government_expenditure_on_general_public_services
Yeah, I figured I would need to go looking around and try to understand why you say “The population is benefitting”. Thank you for the link, I see the EU has made some attempts at transparency, but 15 minutes looking around still can’t find actual details on what exactly the expenses were on just by type of expense. Probably in there somewhere.
My original comment was in regards to yours “Facebook and Googke have had to pay ever ibcreasing fines”, and I was commenting primarily in regards to that part. And your follow up was formed in a question so I gave more context. Not trying to debate, it’s just crazy amounts of money, keeps happening and it’s like it’s turned into a new way of doing business that benefits government and companies.
Also, not part of the EU, so I’m largely focused on the US in particular. But I do appreciate the response and I’ll personally check it out more. Didn’t mean to come off as aggressively or combative kind of “debating” or otherwise just information seeking and I apologize if it did.
I’m shocked. SHOCKED I tell you! Who could have seen sweet old Google doing something like this!
Am I reading this right? As far as I can see, the complaint seems to be that Google would be “tracking” people even if they browse in any browser’s incognito mode.
Of course they do. If I open a private window in Firefox, and then login to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, or any other website, these websites can try to track me. How would any browser control what happens or doesn’t happen on the server side of things?
Three plaintiffs would be better off sueing the companies of these websites for ignoring privacy laws and continuing to add tracking scripts to their sites.
Yes, there are browsers that try to send as little personal information as possible, like the Tor Browser, but even that one can’t disable a Facebook server’s internal logging data - how could it? All modern browsers make it quite clear what their respective incognito mode does - and what it doesn’t do.
You’re missing the fact that Google is both the company behind the most popular browser used to access content on the internet and the most popular website on the internet. Their browser says incognito mode offers protections that their website then runs roughshod over. They’re the perfect company to sue over this because the website can’t shift blame to the browser and the browser can’t shift blame to the website.
Their browser says incognito mode offers protections that their website then runs roughshod over.
That’s the point of my comment. I won’t say “don’t sue Google”, I’ll say “sue Google, but actually read what it says when you open an incognito window”. Offers protections against other people who use this device. And that’s it.
Their browser doesn’t say that it protects you from websites (including their own) tracking you.
Also, they consider it a problem if a website can detect if you’re using incognito mode: https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/google-news-initiative/protecting-private-browsing-chrome/
Chrome will likewise work to remedy any other current or future means of Incognito Mode detection.
Having a signal sent to websites to tell them that you’re in Incognito mode would make things worse for users and would probably work about as well to reduce tracking as the Do Not Track header.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
This is a good explanation, thanks.
These plaintiffs would be better off sueing the companies of these websites for ignoring privacy laws and continuing to add tracking scripts to their sites.
That’s precisely what these people are doing. They’re not suing Google because Chrome doesn’t prevent these sites from building profiles and tracking users even while in Incognito Mode, but because Google themselves are engaging in such privacy invasive tactics.
I think we might agree on the last part, but that’s exactly the point of my comment. If these people are suing Google for privacy invasion tactics, all the more power to them.
But the headline infers the opposite: “lawsuit over ‘incognito mode’ tracking”. This reads like the plaintiffs don’t understand what this “incognito mode” actually does.
Add a zero to the right, that would be awesome
$5 billion Google lawsuit over ‘incognito mode’ tracking moves a step closer to trial 0
Like this?
the right a zero
No, dingus, like this
deleted by creator
It’s very unlikely this lawsuit’s going to come to anything. Just summary judgment was denied.
Supposing Google didn’t make a web browser, it would have no liability here.
And if Google only made a web browser and didn’t control an analytics platform it also have no liability here.
The theory is the incognito mode in a browser which is something of an industry standard term. Should that alone compel the other parts of Google to honor incognito in terms of not tracking, even though it has nothing to do if the browser client capabilities. I.e. Google analytics has no obligation to not track a Firefox browser or a Safari browser that’s In cognito mode. In fact it shouldn’t even be aware it’s an incognito. Google analytics has no obligation to not track a Firefox browser or a Safari browser that’s In cognito mode. In fact it shouldn’t even be aware it’s an incognito.
My guess is just a bunch of scary letters going back and forth, and Google is going to fight it to the death. And maybe lawyers fees will get paid maybe
