3 ms·

There's an implicit corollary that, if your trying to avoid leaving behind traces of activity on your own computer, you probably would also like to minimize tra

There's an implicit corollary that, if your trying to avoid leaving behind traces of activity on your own computer, you probably would also like to minimize traces of activity left behind on other computers as well. This might carry the expectation that unintentional interactions with other systems should be eliminated, since, the fewer systems touched, means the fewer traces of said activity there are in the entire world, no?

paulddraper 11y ago
If they were true, they would disable cookies, as they allow servers to track you. But they do not. They just make sure the cookies are not stored on the computer. Thus the point is to avoid leaving traces on the computer, not the server.
- pavement 11y ago
  None of this precludes the capacity to alter the program's behavior, except the willingness of the developers.
brbsix 11y ago
That is a common misconception, but bears no resemblance to reality. As the other commenter noted, incognito mode (for any browser) only concerns with the local machine. What you mentioned, "minimize traces of activity left behind on other computers as well", is a difficult task. Attempting to do so requires more advanced techniques that entail tough compromises. Consider using Tor, you are anonymous to the endpoint (e.g. the website you visit does not have your IP), but confidential data is not safe from prying eyes in the process. Alternatively you can use some sort of crypt to sign and encrypt your connection... your data is safe from prying eyes (potentially verified as well) but you are no longer anonymous. This can all be mitigated to some extent, but it is well outside the scope of a browser.
- pavement 11y ago
  Certainly is an echo chamber in this whole thread. Count the motivations to resist alterations that would doubtless improve Chromium's respect for privacy.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    > Count the motivations to resist alterations that would doubtless improve Chromium's respect for privacy. That's a very indirect way of explaining motivations. I am certain that there are conflicting requirements that have tradeoff and not as black-and-white as you make it seem. Firefox is a great contrast to Chromium since they are likely to have greater respect for privacy. Is there a privacy aspect that Chromium lags significantly behind Firefox? If not, then your hypothesis (on motivation) is wrong (proof by contradiction: Mozilla doesn't have the same motivations)

paulddraper 11y ago

If they were true, they would disable cookies, as they allow servers to track you. But they do not. They just make sure the cookies are not stored on the computer. Thus the point is to avoid leaving traces on the computer, not the server.

pavement 11y ago
None of this precludes the capacity to alter the program's behavior, except the willingness of the developers.

brbsix 11y ago

That is a common misconception, but bears no resemblance to reality. As the other commenter noted, incognito mode (for any browser) only concerns with the local machine. What you mentioned, "minimize traces of activity left behind on other computers as well", is a difficult task. Attempting to do so requires more advanced techniques that entail tough compromises. Consider using Tor, you are anonymous to the endpoint (e.g. the website you visit does not have your IP), but confidential data is not safe from prying eyes in the process. Alternatively you can use some sort of crypt to sign and encrypt your connection... your data is safe from prying eyes (potentially verified as well) but you are no longer anonymous. This can all be mitigated to some extent, but it is well outside the scope of a browser.

pavement 11y ago
Certainly is an echo chamber in this whole thread. Count the motivations to resist alterations that would doubtless improve Chromium's respect for privacy.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > Count the motivations to resist alterations that would doubtless improve Chromium's respect for privacy. That's a very indirect way of explaining motivations. I am certain that there are conflicting requirements that have tradeoff and not as black-and-white as you make it seem. Firefox is a great contrast to Chromium since they are likely to have greater respect for privacy. Is there a privacy aspect that Chromium lags significantly behind Firefox? If not, then your hypothesis (on motivation) is wrong (proof by contradiction: Mozilla doesn't have the same motivations)