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
All of the Google bashing/love aside, this is actually a very interesting case, that could potentially impact browsers in the future.
When opening a new private browsing window, it says:
Your activity might still be visibleto:
When opening a new private browsing window, it says:
Your activity might still be visibleto:
- Websites that you visit
- Your employer or school
- Your Internet service provider
Absolutely. For example, a free iOS/MacOS update is designed to keep you using the ecosystem for longer, thus buying more apps/paying for more services. They've just realised that they can make more money if people keep devices for longer, since services are more profitable than hardware.
Garageband is a good introduction/learning path onto Logic. Take someone who grew up using Garagaband - are they more likely to use Logic, or something else? Probably Logic.
I’ve seen it and I agree it fails to clearly explain that Google continues to track you.
I am sure this was very clarified to the user in a sentence using legal terminology in one of the tens of pages the user chose to agree with in the terms and services before starting using the product.
Privacy is a lost cause. People just don't care. Its like smokers, you tell them it will cause you cancer and they continue to smoke. Even worse some start smoking knowing that very well. There is FireFox and Brave freely available, yet they continue to use Chrome. Both open source. There is free Signal, yet they continue to use Whatsapp.
Privacy is a lost cause. People just don't care. Its like smokers, you tell them it will cause you cancer and they continue to smoke. Even worse some start smoking knowing that very well. There is FireFox and Brave freely available, yet they continue to use Chrome. Both open source. There is free Signal, yet they continue to use Whatsapp.
I think you’re missing the point. With Apple, whatever free service they offer is there to entice people to buy their products. With Google, -you- are the product.
Not that users should have to install these right off the bat, but the combo of uBlock Origin + Ghostery seems to solve this problem pretty good
We live in the age of information. Knowledge is widely available. Hence we have less smokers and smoking is illegal inside most public places in first world countries.
Any bad habit can be broken - and some arguably much easier than getting rid of an addiction.
That’s the best response you could come up with to someone who simply enjoys using Google services?
Google was well aware that they were being disingenuous when they deliberately chose the term incognito.
Let's hope incognitogate makes google disapear.
Yep, and the case isn’t really about chrome at all - one of the plaintiffs uses safari. The issue, according to the judge, is whether google can do this sort of tracking without actual user consent. And, the judge agreed with you, that the window doesn’t provide a basis for consent, at least because it doesn’t actually say what google is doing itself. Presumably, though, even if google fixes that screen, there would still be an issue when google does this sort of tracking for users using other browsers (who are not going to change their browsers to say “if you use google, google will see X, Y and Z”)
Not missing the point, that was my point. The "if it's free, you're the product" line pops up in every one of these threads and it's inaccurate and dumb. There are plenty of instances of free software in which the user is not the product.
It’s neither inaccurate nor dumb. It’s Google’s business model. Are you attempting to argue otherwise?
iTunes was not free, it was paid by buying the iPod and Mac. Now its free so you can buy your Apple Music subscription.
It's even worse when someone says "if it's free you're the product" as a reason to use some free alternative like Firefox or DuckDuckGo.
"If it's free, you are the product."
A list of popular free software and services: Google stuff, Linux, BSD, DuckDuckGo, Firefox, GitHub, Postgres, Vim, Safari, iLife, iTunes, Spotify free tier.
Pretty silly to say that I'm selling myself by using any of those. Like what, selling my soul? My body? Gimme a break. They usually get something out of me using it, whatever that is. And often this comes along with, I use X because it costs $ and therefore doesn't benefit from me in any other way, which is usually not true.
How does “you are the product” mean you are “selling [your]self?”
Those are two different things.
Product implies being sold. But have it your way; I'm not the product either. My browsing habits are. Probably not even that, rather my browsing habits combined in a mostly anonymous way with thousands of other users in my bucket, but I just assume it's my habits alone to be on the safe side.
Even Firefox must store some session cookies Private browsing as well otherwise most websites would break. That could also be potentially trackable info.
I think the judge is being a 'hard ass' on Google specifically because more on the business they run as "you are the product" than anything else, and doing the complete opposite in a "private window" doesn't make much sense when 90% of the company IS different
I think the judge is being a 'hard ass' on Google specifically because more on the business they run as "you are the product" than anything else, and doing the complete opposite in a "private window" doesn't make much sense when 90% of the company IS different
Pretty sure Judge Koh treats google the same as every other company that comes before her.
And this has nothing to do with session cookies.
