Thats not true for everyone. As others have stated EULA is a long document in legalese no one has time to read that or any understanding of what it is.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
$5 Billion Google Lawsuit Over 'Incognito Mode' Tracking Moves Closer to Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely you can blame businesses.
EULA's are legal documents written by lawyers. Most people can't read and digest them for what they really mean without a legal background. Even then, usually the Courts are left to interpret the meaning. This is intentional. It's intentionally deceptive on the part of companies in order to extract as much value from the customer as possible. In this case, value is information about the customer that Google collects and sells to generate advertising revenue.
So, I disagree you can't blame businesses. Most tech companies (Google, Meta, Twitter) generate revenue by collecting user data for sale or exploiting human nature (like Meta) to generate revenue.
An overly burdensome EULA written by a team of experienced lawyers is clearly no match for the average person on the street. No one is going to buy an iPhone or download Chrome, read the EULA and say. Nope, I don't think so. It NEVER HAPPENS and companies know it.
People don't possess the technical or legal expertise to review and digest these agreements. This is the intent of the companies involved and they do just as much as they think they can get away with.
If you think lawsuits don't change company behavior, ask Phillip Morris, DuPont, Owens Corning (asbestos) or Monsanto about that. I think they would give you a different viewpoint.
Google changed it to clarify better to people who don't know what incognito mode does.
Also, here's the lawsuit: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...v-03664/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-03664-0.pdf
It doesn't allege that Chrome is tracking people in incognito mode. It simply states that people assume that third-party Google trackers installed on porn websites are not tracking users even in Chrome Incognito mode - which is of course blasphemous. Websites can install whatever trackers they want. Has nothing to do with Incognito mode.
My gal is a pretty experienced lawyer (15 years) and she has trouble with EULAs. She does regularly read them.
Yea that's wrong. I guarantee you every website is tracking you equally whether you're using private mode on Chrome, Safari, Edge, or Firefox.
Again, trackers installed on websites have nothing to do with the browser.
Frankly, how accountable should a company be when the legislative bodies responsible for protecting their constituents are the worst offenders of sneaking exploitive clauses into laws?
It's ironic that people turn to the courts for relatively frivolous matters when the 'agreements' that govern their lives are far more complicated and hidden from plain sight than EULAs.
RE: "No one is going to buy an iPhone or download Chrome, read the EULA and say. Nope, I don't think so. It NEVER HAPPENS and companies know it." Even when people do read, the convenience/utility of a service far outweighs privacy because a vast majority of people 'don't have anything to hide.'
As far as health and safety litigation is concerned, that's an entirely different topic. I'm talking in the context of tech related tracking/privacy.
This - all the way.
People should be using adblockers (uBlock Origin + Ghostery has been a winning combo for me) no matter their browser of choice. Since that functionality is on its way out with Chrome and pretty much non existent on Safari, that leaves Firefox and whatever else is out there.
But the judge, who did read, and read much more than the pop messages, said that the suit could be legit.
So read, but not too much, and you'd agree with Google?
Google will settle so in that case only it won’t go far. For all the talk about privacy and security it is clear the public doesn’t give a rat’s patootie.
Google will need to rename Incognito mode, as the word Incognito strongly suggests privacy.
I'm not sure if there is a word for "potentially reduced tracking". They may have to invent a word for it, something akin to defending yourself from a gunman by standing very still.
I'm not sure if there is a word for "potentially reduced tracking". They may have to invent a word for it, something akin to defending yourself from a gunman by standing very still.
The sad part is that the regular Joe doesn't care and the rest already knows how much Google,Facebook,etc. do care about our privacy...
Incognito mode has nothing to do with tracking. It has everything to do with not saving your porn browsing history. That’s it.
say what you want about chrome, its still the fastest browser ive used on my macs and i use adGuard to block all the tracking ******** so
I was always under the impression that all Incognito mode did...no matter what browser...is that nothing is saved on YOUR computer during that time. No cookies, no history...nothing. It always says it doesn't prevent your ISP or others seeing what you're doing while in that mode and out in the Internet. It doesn't hide your IP etc etc.
Man I love being a FireFox user. I can just sit back and enjoy the show
But this has nothing to do with the browser. It's ignorance on part of the people who started this lawsuit. They just don't understand what Private Browsing mode is.
Firefox behaves exactly the same way as Chrome does.
You're correct.
Unless Google was still tying incognito sessions to a logged-in Google account, the browser was working as designed.
"Incognito" means don't use Google.
Google incognito means your identity is concealed from other 3rd parties, not from Google...and its umbrella of companies it hoovered-up.
Google incognito means your identity is concealed from other 3rd parties, not from Google...and its umbrella of companies it hoovered-up.
No. Not true.
When you're browsing in Chrome's incognito mode, Google doesn't know who you are either. However, Google has very sophisticated algorithms that identify a person based on public signatures. Any company can build those algorithms - not limited to Google.
Okay, according to you Google is using their "sophisticated algorithms" to identify a person in "incognito" mode.
Most marketing analytics companies do this.
For example, Meta and 3rd party ad networks do this after Apple removed IDFA.
It's not breaking any law. Neither is it immoral.
Companies cannot be trusted to set the vaue of anything. The damages might be small but the punitive damages should be huge - enough to stop companies from engaging in this underhanded covert collection of data.