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.
Judge Rules Google Must Face Lawsuit Alleging Chrome Tracks Users in Incognito Mode
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That you’re lumping google services in with Linux of all things shows you’re not understanding the difference in profit strategy between the companies. Spotify free tier is there to entice you to move up to paid tier. Safari, iTunes, and the iLife stuff to get you to purchase apple products.
What about them? I'm not saying it's never true, I'm just sick of people spouting it off every chance they get regardless of whether it's true or not because they think it makes them sound smart.
Some free software makes you the product by selling your data. A lot doesn't.
Last edited:
You use Google products and are fine with that. You literally have no basis for concern when it comes to web browsers.
Well, then I hope the information gets to the people and googling becomes illegal just as much as smoking.
Who else is going to discover and fix Apple's flaws?
https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2021/01/a-look-at-imessage-in-ios-14.html
https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive-into-ios-exploit.html?m=1
LOL
Stop it.
iTunes is a retail store front. Like an store it is free to enter, browse and sample.
I remember when I was a kid and I used to go in the music store and ask the clerk if I could listen to samples before I decide to buy. There were listening pods in the store.
While iTunes has that functionality, it can be fed with your own files from day one.
Well…. thank Christ that I don’t use this product & haven’t had to parse their phrasing personally, but to me:
If I got on a shared computer, entered into a mode called “Incognito” & proceeded to search for surprise pearl earrings for my significant other… I would assume that my activities would be hidden from them and my secret would be safe.
It sounds like the only thing I’d be safe from is if they were some weirdo digging through my browser history.
However, if they’re a normal user…. sorry, but all the ads popping up on the browser & inside 3rd party apps suddenly promoting “30% pearl earrings” would let the cat out of the bag.
What a GARBAGE function!
I got a MUCH better splash screen in mind… maybe one that says: “this mode does next to nothing; why bother? You cannot escape tracking in this browser, point blank period”.
Seems a lot more honest & accurate!
Yes, there's a big difference. That's why the saying is dumb.
Last edited:
Look, if Russia state news hates Firefox, that's the greatest endorsement ever given to it.
I don't use very many Google products. I don't use Chrome.
Last edited:
Seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Incognito Mode is and what it does. Ironically, it's actually perfect for the scenario you created.
You search for surprise earrings. Use Incognito or any of the privacy modes then there's no browser history saved. There are no cookies or site data saved. The search for earrings effectively disappears when you leave the browser. You don't see ads related to your Incognito search because the Incognito search wasn't tied to your profile.
The search info is not persistent beyond your session. Anyone logging into another Incognito session or their standard profile will not see ads based on your Incognito search. Now, what you seem to be doing is trying to tie the 3rd party's knowledge of the search to future searches. Your search wasn't persistent. Bob's Jewels and Baubles only knows their website got visited, not that it was you or they should serve similar ads to you. No one will see any ads that would let the cat out of the bag.
I think you missed his point, which is that the search *is* persistent in the sense that when google captured that you searched for pearl earrings, then when his wife uses the computer later and starts seeing ads for pearl earrings everyplace, that gives away the secret.
I got his point 100%. I also pointed out they way you and him think the mode works is incorrect. His wife would not see any searches for earrings because the search occurred in Incognito and wouldn't be tied to the computer. Google doesn't use data from Incognito mode to sell personalized ads. Ads are tied to a particular profile. Which is why an earring search while logged in to your profile will produce earring ads. Conversely, the search in Incognito is not, therefore it won't produce related ads.
The only way for his wife to see the search is for him not to log out of the Incognito session and for her to search his searches. Even if she hopped on the computer before he logged out of the session she wouldn't even see ads in Incognito related to his search. It simply doesn't work that way.
BTW this is easily tested, if the veracity of my statement is in question... or you're just curious.
According to the court’s order, the id of the device is sent to google, even in incognito mode. Are they receiving device-specific information but not using it to target ads? If so, why?
Wouldn't Google already have the device ID anyway so what would it matter? Not really sure of the point you're trying to make here. Who exactly do you think the ads would be targeted to in your scenario? Targeted ads are tied to a google profile. Incognito is not tied to any profile so there's no one to target.
you are brain washed to think Google is the only search engine. There is Mojeek. Brave is building their own. There are other search engines but unfortunately all based on Bing (DDG, Qwant, Ecosia) which is not necessarily better than Google with privacy.
You are brain washed to think I imply that Google is the only search engine. But since you were so against googling something I wanted to get clarification on search engines in general.
The lesser quality of DDG/Bing in my search results I can witness multiple times a week as well too.
We'll all survive COVID too but we're talking about a major disruption to all consumers and all business on the order of trillions of dollars. It's not a trivial thing. It's literally the Internet as we know it.
Brave is bringing their own.
Yes, and this shows how much of a problem Google is. We, as humanity, should not rely on any 1 entity to run our lives and should have alternatives.
The best way to start is to ease the Google clutch on humanity and to move to other alternatives services that already exist like TutaNote-ProtonMail for Gmail, DDG for search, Apple Maps/OpenMaps, LibreOffice over Google Docs, Brave/FireFox over Chrome.
Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about YouTube or Android, albeit Android is supposedly open source and could work without Google.
Those are rubbish though if you need results. I collect vintage computers and only Google search is useful for searching older 1970s and 1980s vintage stuff and it even links directly to page within archived magazines, documents, etc.
Brave is redirect malware so much more evil than targeted ads.
https://decrypt.co/31522/crypto-brave-browser-redirect
Yes, no one ever argued otherwise. Google is the best search engine and it comes with a price, and thats your privacy. your choice.
As for Brave redirecting to malware that happened for a very short time like maybe 1 week assuming you clicked on the ad and it was not malware it was affiliated advertisers. In no way it was a breach of privacy.
If Brave was such bad browser, how do you explain people moving from Safari, Chrome, and Firefox to it?
How did you try it? its not out yet?