Judge Rules Google Must Face Lawsuit Alleging Chrome Tracks Users in Incognito Mode

[Bandaman]

Firefox is the way to go! 👍🏻

Firefox has like 3% marketshare now and is disappearing into obscurity. Also they are no longer about a "free internet" ... despite pushing this ideology for years: Mozilla says ‘deplatforming’ Trump isn't enough, wants to shield internet from ‘bad actors’ as users uninstall Firefox in disgust — RT USA News

With so little marketshare, making comments that go against the very thing people use it for is pretty stupid. I'd recommend Brave browser if you care about privacy. Also, since 90% of the internet is being browsed on by Chrome or a Chromium-based browser (which is what Brave is), you know it's going to work with most sites. On top of that, Brave is creating their own search engine soon that doesn't track its users: Search | Brave Browser

 

[Dopestar]

Google’s definition of ‘incognito’: Dark Mode

Omg that was such an epic post!

 

[hot-gril]

Firefox has like 3% marketshare now and is disappearing into obscurity. Also they are no longer about a "free internet" ... despite pushing this ideology for years: Mozilla says ‘deplatforming’ Trump isn't enough, wants to shield internet from ‘bad actors’ as users uninstall Firefox in disgust — RT USA News

With so little marketshare, making comments that go against the very thing people use it for is pretty stupid. I'd recommend Brave browser if you care about privacy. Also, since 90% of the internet is being browsed on by Chrome or a Chromium-based browser (which is what Brave is), you know it's going to work with most sites. On top of that, Brave is creating their own search engine soon that doesn't track its users: Search | Brave Browser

Careful with RT News. Also, careful with Brave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controversies

 

[4jasontv]

I can agree with this. I just don't think the lawsuit has merit though. All of the browsers are pretty explicit about what their Incognito modes do and don't do. Funnily enough, they all break it down like that as well... do/don't do.

It's like one would have to intentionally avoid the browser notice to form the "I thought I was browsing privately" argument.

I do. I think the name itself implies functionality that trumps the statement that it's not included. Just like you can't sell something with carbohydrates as carb-free and then claim you're not responsible if there are carbs in it.

Im not sure what you mean, quit using google? Why would I stop using the best most accurate and effective search engine on the planet? Why would I stop using YouTube? I’ve had a Youtube account since 2006. Gmail? I can’t remember the last time I sent or received an email I cared about. But I have and use 2 Gmail accounts. Google maps vs Apple Maps lmfao... please

Because they put your data, which has value, at risk.

- Can quit? I use Search, Gmail, Docs, and YouTube because they're hands-down the best. Wouldn't want to stop. I don't use their other stuff.
- All my friends do it? IDK, I don't care to ask my friends what websites they use O_0 and none of Google's products have a "network effect" really like Facebook does.
- I have nothing to hide? Mostly true. When I want to hide something, I hide it well; just using Apple's services or something instead isn't going to cut it. If others want to hide more, they can go ahead and not use Google, but that's their choice and not mine.

And they are not the best product. Ignoring the fact that they scan your emails, documents and search/viewing history, they aren't very good at what they do. Often Google products are just the largest or most popular no direct monetary cost solutions. YouTube exists because there are no other viable solutions for content creators. So long as the audience goes to YT the creators have to go there which re-affirms the perception that you should go to YT. It's a terrible platform for both consumers and creators but there are no good alternatives. That's a network effect.

Sure, more services use Facebook as an identifier than Google, but google still shows up a lot of places it isn't necessary.

As far as having nothing to hide, how do you know you will never have anything to hide? Something you wrote when you were 12 will still be attached to your name in 20 years. Maybe you made a joke at some point that will be offensive. I am not willing to risk my personal wealth and reputation in the future because I made one comment today.

 

[Octopuss]

User reads:
"Google also makes clear that 'Incognito' does not mean 'invisible,' and that the user's activity during that session may be visible to websites they visit, and any third-party analytics or ads services the visited websites use,"

 

[69Mustang]

I do. I think the name itself implies functionality that trumps the statement that it's not included. Just like you can't sell something with carbohydrates as carb-free and then claim you're not responsible if there are carbs in it.

That makes absolutely no sense. The term incognito is not an absolute and is, like all words, context dependent. To accept your premise the word incognito would have to be examined minus context. Even then it's a still a stretch.
The definition says: having one's true identity concealed. Incognito mode does conceal one's identity from anyone else using using the same computer. The definition does not imply blanket concealment from any and everybody.

To act as if you don't understand that word meaning varies with context is asking a bit much don't you think? If I say, "Jason's speech was a glorified dog and pony show", or "that movie was dead on arrival", or "Incognito mode keeps your browsing history from being seen by anyone else using the same device", you can't take dog and pony, dead, or incognito and form an argument around the word or phrase as if it exists in a vacuum. ←Apologies for that tortured sentence, but you get the point.

What you're saying is akin to claiming a felony was committed because the Bucs murdered the Chiefs in the Super Bowl.
That's not the way language works. I've seen your posts and I am sure you already know that.

 

[Bandaman]

Careful with RT News. Also, careful with Brave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controversies

The "contoversies" are so mundane and minuscule that they're not worth bringing up. Especially when compared to the atrocities of other browsers. And the DNS leak from January has already been patched. None of their "controversies" have anything to do with harvesting people's data. Also, thank you for cherry-picking with the news source with internal bias because I posted it from RT (it was just the first one I clicked on). You can literally find a thousand other websites about the statement she made, including Mozilla's own website. Disregarding a piece just because RT also posted about it is a bit silly.

 

[mi7chy]

The "contoversies" are some mundane and minuscule that they're not worth bringing up. Especially when compared to the atrocities of other browsers. And the DNS leak from January has already been patched. None of their "controversies" have anything to do with harvesting people's data.

Not everyone has low standards.

 

[A MacBook lover]

Must be a joke, but another well hidden one. Luckily courts in any halfway decent country don’t work on “they deserve it” shouts.

You pretend as if corrupt judges don’t exist. Even in some of the “best” counties on earth. Even here in the USA. You think apple has never been victim to an unjust ruling?

 

[ericwn]

You pretend as if corrupt judges don’t exist. Even in some of the “best” counties on earth. Even here in the USA. You think apple has never been victim to an unjust ruling?

You act as if law works like the stoning scene in Life of Brian. It doesn’t.

Even in the USA.

 

[A MacBook lover]

You act as if law works like the stoning scene in Life of Brian. It doesn’t.

Even in the USA.

Google will be stoned.

 

[ericwn]

Google will be stoned.

It seems you are already.

 

[4jasontv]

That makes absolutely no sense. The term incognito is not an absolute and is, like all words, context dependent. To accept your premise the word incognito would have to be examined minus context. Even then it's a still a stretch.
The definition says: having one's true identity concealed. Incognito mode does conceal one's identity from anyone else using using the same computer. The definition does not imply blanket concealment from any and everybody.

To act as if you don't understand that word meaning varies with context is asking a bit much don't you think? If I say, "Jason's speech was a glorified dog and pony show", or "that movie was dead on arrival", or "Incognito mode keeps your browsing history from being seen by anyone else using the same device", you can't take dog and pony, dead, or incognito and form an argument around the word or phrase as if it exists in a vacuum. ←Apologies for that tortured sentence, but you get the point.

What you're saying is akin to claiming a felony was committed because the Bucs murdered the Chiefs in the Super Bowl.
That's not the way language works. I've seen your posts and I am sure you already know that.

We are not talking about people who reflect on these types of matters. The people who decide will be asked what they think incognito mode should do by the name itself. At least that is what should be asked of them if this lawsuit is to make any sense. Do not assume the average person will understand that they have to acquire additional context beyond the name of the feature. By name alone incognito implies hiding ones identity to all parties, not just local one.

 

[69Mustang]

We are not talking about people who reflect on these types of matters. The people who decide will be asked what they think incognito mode should do by the name itself. At least that is what should be asked of them if this lawsuit is to make any sense. Do not assume the average person will understand that they have to acquire additional context beyond the name of the feature. By name alone incognito implies hiding ones identity to all parties, not just local one.

In this imaginary case the potential juror would be shown the incognito splash page and asked what do they think it means. The average person wouldn't have to acquire additional context. They'd simply read the sentence. No one, especially not the average person, picks a single word out of a sentence and builds a narrative around what it means. That's not even realistic.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Wasn't Google's motto a few years ago 'Do no evil?'

So, if I remember that correctly, what part of the crap they have pulled in the past 365 days alone, and the past few years, aren't exactly evil?

The firing of a minority who drew focus on their treatment of minorities, or the tracking of people that chose NOT TO BE TRACKED?

Because BOTH are evil, and, well, both make my decision to not trust them with my email, and whatever else I can control, such a good idea...

 

[hot-gril]

And they are not the best product. Ignoring the fact that they scan your emails, documents and search/viewing history, they aren't very good at what they do. Often Google products are just the largest or most popular no direct monetary cost solutions. YouTube exists because there are no other viable solutions for content creators. So long as the audience goes to YT the creators have to go there which re-affirms the perception that you should go to YT. It's a terrible platform for both consumers and creators but there are no good alternatives. That's a network effect.

Gmail is seemingly the only reputable email service that hasn't been hacked on a wide scale besides iCloud, and iCloud email has other drawbacks. So with the exception of my personal iCloud email, there's zero chance I'm using anything but Gmail. Not even paid solutions. I'd rather have Google scanning my emails for advertising than have my data in the hands of criminals.

And nothing else has come close to feature parity or user-friendliness with YouTube, even ignoring the content. There are valid complaints about content moderation, but considering the pressures they're under, I don't think anyone else would've handled it better. Vimeo etc are basically piracy platforms at this point just cause their copyright detection is so weak.

As far as having nothing to hide, how do you know you will never have anything to hide? Something you wrote when you were 12 will still be attached to your name in 20 years. Maybe you made a joke at some point that will be offensive. I am not willing to risk my personal wealth and reputation in the future because I made one comment today.

The last time I wrote something offensive was today, and I'm not worried.

 

[hot-gril]

The "contoversies" are so mundane and minuscule that they're not worth bringing up. Especially when compared to the atrocities of other browsers. And the DNS leak from January has already been patched. None of their "controversies" have anything to do with harvesting people's data. Also, thank you for cherry-picking with the news source with internal bias because I posted it from RT (it was just the first one I clicked on). You can literally find a thousand other websites about the statement she made, including Mozilla's own website. Disregarding a piece just because RT also posted about it is a bit silly.

I'm less concerned about vulnerabilities than I am about them lying to their users or having questionable ways of making money. You can judge how you feel like, but for those who don't know anything about Brave, it's counterproductive to fight the man without doing your reading first.

Well, why not link to the original? https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/

 

[The Cappy]

You're not paying for Safari and it isn't completely private in private mode so it behaves the same way.

Not quite. You're buying an Apple product, and Apple made Safari as part of their "controls the whole widget" philosophy. Safari isn't "free" any more than the bevelled edge on the device was "free."

 

[wigby]

Hope Google get shut down cos of this. People should switch to Safari

If Google gets shut down, what will you use as a search engine for Safari?

 

[4jasontv]

In this imaginary case the potential juror would be shown the incognito splash page and asked what do they think it means. The average person wouldn't have to acquire additional context. They'd simply read the sentence. No one, especially not the average person, picks a single word out of a sentence and builds a narrative around what it means. That's not even realistic.

I thought we were working with real life here. People including a judge have already looked at the splash screen and determined it’s insufficient.

Besides, most people likely assume a device is only used by one person so claiming other people using the same device won’t see your history doesn’t make sense. Most people would assume no one else would use it, and if they did you provided permission. Incognito only makes sense as a way to block non local monitoring.

 

[nouvejetzt]

People who use incognito at work for non-work related search be like o.0!

 

[BuddyTronic]

Google’s definition of ‘incognito’: Dark Mode

I thought the “Google violated wiretap laws” was fitting.

“Don’t be evil” my axx Google!

 

[Suckfest 9001]

If Google gets shut down, what will you use as a search engine for Safari?

Bing probably but it’s nowhere near as good.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Disappointing to see what has manifested as the definition of "Incognito" mode on current browsers. What could have been the addition of Tor-like security and privacy features designed to protect the user when visiting certain parts of the internet has instead become an insignificant "hide this browsing history from my family" feature.

But this is what it's always been/done.

It was never for anything else.

Apple is actually the company that originally made it - Wikipedia says Safari 2.0 was the first major browser to have the feature, in April 2005. It was then added to Chrome in December 2008, then IE and Firefox in 2009.

 

[69Mustang]

I thought we were working with real life here. People including a judge have already looked at the splash screen and determined it’s insufficient.

Besides, most people likely assume a device is only used by one person so claiming other people using the same device won’t see your history doesn’t make sense. Most people would assume no one else would use it, and if they did you provided permission. Incognito only makes sense as a way to block non local monitoring.

Wait. What people and what judge looked at the splash screen and determined it insufficient? Kinda made that up didn't you? Shared work/school computers, libraries/labs, family desktops, tablets. So no, most people wouldn't make that assumption because it would be silly to do so. Incognito Mode on Chrome, Private Browsing on Safari, InPrivate on Edge and Privacy Mode on Firefox all operate the same way.

So for you to say the modes only make sense to as a way to block non-local monitoring... when absolutely none do it... and all explicitly tell you they don't... the only thing that doesn't make sense is your interpretation.