Okay Chrome lovers, talk yourself out of this one…
Google updates Chrome's Incognito Mode disclaimer to admit it is tracking users
Submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
tsonfeir@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Toes@ani.social 10 months ago
Well you see, it’s used by virtually everything. So get used to it. is all I imagine people saying, not my opinion.
tsonfeir@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Ahh yes, the good ole, “you don’t have a choice” nonsense. 😉
Rediphile@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
I can bitch about chrome all day long… but none of that bitching will be about incognito mode as that was and continues to be an useful feature that did exactly what I expected it to do. Everything it said it did, it did.
Just because people made up their own imaginary ideas about what they think it does isn’t really Google’s fault. If people think snorkels allow them to scuba dive and then drown, I’m not about to blame the snorkel maker that wrote ‘diving googles and snorkel’ on the packaging.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 10 months ago
I switched away from chrome a while ago, but this is just stupid. Incognito has always said that it can’t stop sties from tracking you. It’s always been about stopping stuff from being stored locally. Here’s the message:
If you read that and thought it did more than it said, that’s on you.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 10 months ago
Incognito mode didn’t do what it was never advertised to do, and I’m fact does precisely what it always claimed. The horror!
I swear people like you act like every day Google simply exists is a fresh outrage.
PoopMonster@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m curious as to what led people to believe otherwise before this update. I don’t use chrome but I recall it always being reffered to as porn mode. Meaning it just doesn’t save browsing history, no more no less.
Did Google have misleading wording implying it was doing anything else?
anlumo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It also doesn’t preserve cookies after closing the window. I’m also curious what people expect that mode to do.
kratoz29@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Well, fill incognito I guess, no trace for you, you can surf even the deep web… That for the less technical folks ofc.
tastysnacks@programming.dev 10 months ago
I remember interviews with the development team about it. As far as I know they were always clear what was happening on the back end.
anarchy79@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Did Google have misleading wording implying it was doing anything else?
Do they literally have anything else?
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 10 months ago
Every time I’ve read the disclaimer it has been very clear and accurate, but don’t let me cloud the issue with facts.
TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world 10 months ago
All google products track you. Don’t use Google products.
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Firefox’s private browsing description is pretty solid if anybody managed to read it
Lojcs@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I find this very silly. Incognito always had disclaimers about how it doesn’t protect you from tracking. Do people not know Google is a website? And how tf did Google lose that lawsuit when eulas have “this software isn’t fit for any purpose” clauses and incognito was never advertised for privacy to begin with.
Crashumbc@lemmy.world 10 months ago
If I had to guess, is because the mode’s very name strongly tells you so?
Definition– adjective (of a person) having one’s true identity concealed. “in order to observe you have to be incognito”
adverb in a way that conceals one’s true identity. “he is now operating incognito”
noun an assumed or false identity. “she is locked in her incognito”
Lojcs@lemm.ee 10 months ago
having one’s true identity concealed
Which is exactly what the incognito mode does. Being incognito doesn’t mean you can’t be tracked in your fake identity
_number8_@lemmy.world 10 months ago
not protecting users from tracking is very different than wantonly tracking users yourself when they literally hit the privacy button
Lojcs@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I would think such a thing would be a bigger liability. Because even if Google stops tracking you other trackers wouldn’t. If people didn’t read and understand “this does not protect against trackers” they definitely aren’t going to do that with “this will stop Google’s trackers but not 3rd party ones”.
scrappydoo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
“If you’re concerned, for whatever reason, you do not wish to be tracked by federal and state authorities, my strong recommendation is to use [Google Chrome’s] incognito mode.”
- Eric Schmidt, 2015
Lojcs@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I stand corrected
uuhhhhmmmm@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
I was always curious why is it called Incognito or Private mode? Temporary or Guest session would make more sense: “You’ve entered a Temporary session. Your browsing history and cookies will not be saved.”
Rediphile@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
I don’t believe it was ever called ‘private mode’, or am I wrong on this?
SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 10 months ago
Private Browsing, for browsing private parts.
Octopus1348@lemy.lol 9 months ago
On Firefox it’s called Private, on Edge, it’s called InPrivate mode.
red@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
private browsing term appears in desktop and Android. Apple also uses the term.
Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Guest sessions already exist in the profile menu and is a separate feature. Guest doesn’t save history/cookies/etc locally but also doesn’t use your existing history, extensions, bookmarks, settings, etc. It’s intended more for an actual guest user to sign into temporarily.
SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 10 months ago
Good to see Google finally fixing issues
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 10 months ago
If you don’t want to be tracked just use LibreWolf or Tor
k_rol@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
I’d say give a try to Firefox
jinwk00@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Isn’t Librewolf fork of Firefox with hardened features pre-enabled?
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 10 months ago
LibreWolf is just Firefox but better and Tor is Firefox but maximum privacy
Fades@lemmy.world 10 months ago
WaterFox too
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Never personally used it but seems nice
RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I can’t remember the last time I used Google Chrome.
Nothing but Firefox and a Linux chromium browser.
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Unfortunately I have it installed to double-check things and occasional compatibility purpose. Believe it or not, sites have started to appear who work in Chrome but not Firefox. Solution is most likely perfectly simple but developers just don’t want to deal with it so I’ve been told “just use Chrome” few times in past few years.
RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yep. There’s the occasional rare site that demands chrome. That’s when chromium comes in handy. I can’t think of a single site I use that I’m willing to install chrome for. Your needs are different, though.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 10 months ago
Firefox’s InPrivate mode is the exact same feature.
Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Not quite, in 2018 they did add tracking protection to their list of goals for their Private browsing mode and have implemented features to reduce tracking/fingerprinting/etc while in it. The main focuses though were still the same at the start though: protecting against local data being saved.
wiki.mozilla.org/Private_Browsing
We target Private Browsing to 3 privacy goals; in a Private Browsing session, Firefox:
- Doesn’t save the browsing history or display it in the Firefox UI
- Prevents the session’s data from writing to persistent storage
- Protects the session’s data from online tracking
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Talk about easy way out. “There, problem solved. It’s not a violation if we write it somewhere in tiny font.”
Rediphile@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
The amount of words needed to fully explain this to tech illiterate idiots would be so many that those idiots would just argue they cannot be expected to read all of it. These people already do this with the terms + conditions documents they agree to.
Incognito mode did every single thing it said it did and behaved exactly as I expected from day one. Is there a single user here who actually was surprised by how it worked? Did anyone honestly think it was like Tor or something? Why? Where did anyone ever get that idea at all?
WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Expected incognito functionality sits in the gaping chasm between actual incognito functionality and TOR. When I’m being told I can go incognito - you know, sneaky, in disguise, I don’t expect to have all of my activity broadcast back to those that say I’m incognito.
Of course, trusting current Google is foolish, but that doesn’t make it less deceptive.
Loce@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Every day I’m more glad I’ve got rid of that spyware browser-wannabe called Chrome.
heyoni@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I don’t use chrome but this is a whole lot of nothing. It’s basically saying if you save a file or an article to your reading list it’ll still be there…and that remote websites will still stuff your face with cookies and try to track you…but it’s not like they’re giving you a special chrome cookie to link your private and non private browsing. Server side tracking never goes away, not even with Firefox.
Anyways, who cares. Delete chrome and start using Firefox. But again, make sure you delete the files you download in incognito or they’ll still be there. And your ISP can still see which domains you’re going to if you use them as your DNS.
cttttt@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Just so you know, because TLS SNI is not encrypted and not yet universally obfuscated (adoption of this is pretty slow and one of the largest CDN providers had to pause their rollout last I checked), not-even-deep packet inspection can be used to track the sites you visit regardless of your DNS provider or wherever resolution is encrypted.
Also, if a website isn’t fronted by one of the most popular CDN providers in existence, it can be possible to infer the sites you’re visiting based on their server IP addresses.
Although this just shifts where tracking can occur, a VPN is the only reliable way to maybe prevent your ISP from tracking the sites you visit, if this is your desire.
heyoni@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Yep, I’m aware. It’s how that one guy hacked his airplanes wireless, by setting up a certificate with his domain and the airlines and then using that domain + port 443 as an ssh or vpn tunnel.
So TLS rollout is slow because the websites can still be seen with packet inspection? We’re talking about TLS 1.4 right?