13 ms·

Is Private Browsing Really Private?

95 points by thmslee 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Personally I always believed the porn mode browsing gives two benefits: - sites don't get recorded in browser history - by not exposing your regular browsing cookies, it significantly reduces the likelihood an "embarrassing" site will somehow end up on your Facebook wall I hope I'm not wrong about the second one.
- gcp 10y ago
  This is correct at least for Firefox. The new Container Tabs feature works similarly: it splits cookies.
camiller 10y ago
Not really private, just keeps your local machine clean. Despite TeMPOraL's labeling it "porn mode" my most common use case is if I need to log into my Google account from my wife's laptop I'll use an Incognito mode window in Chrome so that I don't have to log her out of her Google account.
- eknight15 10y ago
  Is there a reason you don't use the people switcher? https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2364824?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2364824?co=GENIE.Pl...
  - amorphid 10y ago
    I use the people switcher on computers I "control". It is convenient to have two accounts which stay logged in to various services. I do not like staying logged in, and might forget to log out of, computers that aren't mine.
  - camiller 10y ago
    I use people switcher on my laptop to switch between my two google accounts, but on my wife's laptop I see no reason to leave crumbs of my presence behind.
  - zhengyi13 10y ago
    Because that leaves your SO in the position of being able, even accidentally, to log in to your account. Further, I'd guess that even if you absolutely trust your SO not to violate your privacy, you might still reasonably distrust the platform they're working on, and you might not want to expose your account credentials on a platform that you don't directly control.
  - natch 10y ago
    I see you do UX at Google. Thank you for asking users questions like this (I really hope you were asking sincerely, not rhetorically). Please talk to users more.
    - eknight15 10y ago
      Certainly. I don't work on Chrome, but I'm being sincere and I'm curious of the use case. There may be a better solution here.
  - kedean 10y ago
    I don't use it because it requires that I switch back. My wife won't be bothered to deal with learning the people-switcher (there's no reason she should, it's really her laptop in question), so using incognito means that once I close the window, it's clean again. It's a lot easier to remember to close the window than it is to remember to switch back to her account. The option I finally chose to go with, is to install firefox on her computer as well. Firefox is for me, Chrome is for her. I'm an FF guy anyway. The main UX problem stands, though, it's too easy to be the wrong person.
    - gowld 10y ago
      There's no need to "Switch back" unless... oh my, your wife closes all her browser windows sometimes?!
    - _coldfire 10y ago
      I'm in the same boat, well aware of chrome option to switch accounts, but the simplicity of dual browsers wins when two people use the same login regularly. Also I get to keep up to date with changes in firefox.
  - rb808 10y ago
    For me its easier to use a different browser. Chrome for her, Edge for me, Firefox for the kids.
    - jimmyswimmy 10y ago
      Exactly how I manage online personas. Firefox for my normal browsing, IE for accessing my spam accounts and anything I'd prefer not to easily link back to me. Wife uses chrome. The icons and applications look sufficiently different that there's no confusion about what persona I am in which browser. And I can have all of them up at the same time.
  - ajtaylor 10y ago
    The people switcher is a godsend for web dev work. I have one for my normal work window (email, ticketing, etc), and two for various types of test accounts. It's SO useful to not have to constantly log in and out. Thank you!
- AdamSC1 10y ago
  That's the problem we tried to outline in this paper. If you ask the average person what "private" should mean in this context it turns out they believe it is a large set of features providing total protection. To a tech-savvy audience its more obvious that private browsing modes don't offer that. This discrepancy is something that people have genuine concerns about and want to see either more features to protect their privacy, or better transparency in naming/explaining/disclaiming these modes.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    > If you ask the average person Did you actually interview her for this paper? Where'd you find her? Can I ask her a few questions when you're done? I have so much I need to know from the average person.
  - eh78ssxv2f 10y ago
    I do not see results broken-down by different browsers. I am not sure about FF's privacy mode but Chrome's incognito mode clearly says: "However, you aren’t invisible. Going incognito doesn’t hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, or the websites you visit." This warning appears on every tab in the incognito mode, so it is pretty visible.
    - AdamSC1 10y ago
      This is a great point. As I've noted a few times, our surveys were conducted with different question sets for every browser that made note of different features and warnings. We also took that into consideration when aggregating the results into one whitepaper. We wanted the whitepaper to be browser agnostic, this isn't about blaming specific browsers or actions. We wanted to highlight the larger issue that there is a gap in privacy education for a mainstream user and that it is something that members of technical communities can all step up and help with. As for a special note for the warnings, I would say it is akin to the Terms of Service for websites. Perfectly visible, but never really read and understood.
gcp 10y ago
The "Most common misconceptions about Private Browsing" part is actually misleading for Firefox users, because that does apply Tracking Protection in private browsing mode. So some of the top misconceptions aren't, at least not if you use Firefox. (Yes, yes, it can never be perfect, but I don't believe that invalidates the point)
- AdamSC1 10y ago
  DuckDuckGo employee here - I ran the survey we used in this. We had a separate question for users who noted that they used Firefox that spoke to the specific cases for that browser. The final whitepaper is browser agnostic, and these are the top misconceptions overall, but results were split out in the research phase to account for this.
konceptz 10y ago
Title is a little misleading but a good article. "Surveys done on users perceptions of private browsing" or at they titled the paper "A Study on Private Browsing: Consumer Usage, Knowledge, and Thoughts"
spaceboy 10y ago
Probably relevant: "Google removes secret agent warning from Chrome’s incognito mode" https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/app/generated_resources.grd?r1=239201&r2=239282 https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/app/... “Pages you view in this tab won’t appear in your browser history or search history, and they won’t leave other traces, like cookies, on your device after you close all incognito tabs. Any files you download or bookmarks you create will be preserved, however. Going incognito doesn’t affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of surveillance by secret agents or people standing behind you.” The new version is: Pages you view in incognito tabs won’t stick around in your browser’s history, cookie store, or search history after you’ve closed all of your incognito tabs. Any files you download or bookmarks you create will be kept. Going incognito doesn’t affect the behavior of other people, servers, software, or people standing behind you.
- ams6110 10y ago
  sigh nobody has a sense of humor anymore.
  - gowld 10y ago
    It's not humor. Secret agents are a real problem.
    - InitialLastName 10y ago
      So are people standing behind you.
- neotek 10y ago
  I love to know what prompted that change, whether it was due to user feedback, or a management decision, or even just the personal preferences of the individual responsible for rewording the warning.
throwaway2016a 10y ago
"DuckDuckGo is the search engine that doesn’t track you." so obviously this article has marketing lean. While private browsing is not actually private I feel going so far as to say it does not stop websites from collecting info on you is maybe a bit too far. The site can still collect information about you, yes. But unless you sign in while in private browsing or the site is using some sort of user-agent / IP trickery it won't be automatically tied to your accounts. None of the cookies or local storage are shared across private/non private browsing. Personally, I use it mostly to see what websites look like when I'm not logged in or if I want to access something that can only be accessed while logged out without actually logging out which is surprisingly common.
- AdamSC1 10y ago
  There are plenty of things a browser can see without being logged in. Consider checking this page: http://webkay.robinlinus.com/ http://webkay.robinlinus.com/ Private Browsing simply prevents cookies and nothing else, and for the average person we find that is not what's expected from something defined as "private" browsing.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    I'm a full stack web developer. I'm well aware of what the HTTP headers and Javascript methods can expose even while in private. I was oversimplifying fingerprinting a bit.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mintplant 10y ago
    > Private Browsing simply prevents cookies and nothing else Not true, at least for Firefox. In Private Browsing mode, Firefox will avoid saving temporary files and other data to disk, keeping everything in RAM instead, which is wiped when Private Browsing mode is exited. This includes history, cookies, and cache data. I believe localStorage behaves differently as well. Firefox also makes an effort to block tracking scripts/servers in Private Browsing mode, using Disconnect's filter list. The Private Browsing new tab page explains this all pretty succinctly: https://i.imgur.com/MGp53eP.png https://i.imgur.com/MGp53eP.png
sjbase 10y ago
This all seems likely to be true, but the source being Duck Duck Go calls the results & methodology into question. I'd love to see an independent researcher confirm these findings.
- AdamSC1 10y ago
  Hey there, DuckDuckGo employee here. Would love to know why you feel our affiliation calls that into question? In the the whitepaper we disclose the full methodology, and each statistic has a margin of error calculated and added in. Feel free to review it - we're happy to answer questions!
  - sjbase 10y ago
    I have to confess I didn't see the link to the whitepaper in my first read through - shame on me for commenting before I did :) I think you all did a pretty good job putting this together overall after reading through it, and I applaud the effort. That said, the critical HNer in me sees some bias in the questions and answers. Specifics: * The results on page 17 jumped out at me the most. There are 4 specific options for negative emotional reactions, and one generic positive option. It's easy to underestimate the powerful effect this has on pushing the responder to a specific answer. Imagine if your answer options were only "content, secure, informed, protected, neutral, misled" and how different your results might be. * The question for the above, specifically the tone of "[...] does not offer any additional protection [...]" is also a form of leading the responder to an answer. While the statement is mostly true, there's some contention on the point esp. regarding cookies (see the other comments on this thread). Either way, you'd get a more honest answer if you strictly list the things private browsing does, and the things it does not do in a way that's as objective and incontrovertible as possible. * It would be useful to see the benefits underlying the "correctly identified" category on page 13. I couldn't find those anywhere which was a bit suspicious. In consulting, I used to survey users on their personal security practices (password strength, adherence to policies, secure disposal, etc.) and gained a huge appreciation for how powerful bias and misinterpretation can be in surveys, and how hard it is to control. But to reiterate, I think this is overall pretty well done and has some really interesting results, esp. the usage data in the first few sections.
awinter-py 10y ago
FF tracking protection helps. Disabling JS from iffy marketing companies mostly solves the problem. (From a legal standpoint, not a security standpoint). It's illegal under wiretapping rules to share communication with a third party. (but if the user's browser hits a third-party data collection endpoint, that's somehow okay. See 'in re doubleclick'). Firefox tracking protection uses the disconnect.me list https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection/blocked https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection/blocked to get rid of all of these it can. If the adversary isn't a marketing firm that has to comply with the law, ignore the above. Then you're looking at browser flaws (canvas fingerprinting) and session inference (using client IP, URL, browser-agent, & timestamps to reconstruct identity from behavior).
unstatusthequo 10y ago
As an attorney who does digital forensics, it's most certainly not
samat 10y ago
Is it actually a misconception that private browsing prevents search engines from knowing my searches? I do search for some nasty stuff in private mode and it never pops up in ads for my main account. I do understand there might be conspiracy in Google to gather that data and link it to my account but never use it in the way I notice, but that looks like conspiracy theory to me.
- AdamSC1 10y ago
  Your private mode searches may not be ones that have ads for them, those sites may not use Google's re-marketing offers, the re-marketing may be offered via cookies or if they fall into an 'adult' category then you are going to see them in less locations anyway. Despite that a search engine is still able to see what you search in private browsing modes as none of it's protection change, hide or obscure your identity. If you perform a search from your IP address (or any other information that can be fingerprinted from your browser) and then do the same in private browsing mode, Google would know that it is the same user committing both searches.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Is it actually a misconception that private browsing prevents search engines from knowing my searches? Of course the search engine knows what you searched for! You sent the search string from your computer to one of their servers. You'd need a way to prevent the search engine from knowing your IP address, like a proxy or Tor, in order to hide your identity.
ddito 10y ago
I really don't understand why anyone would expect private browsing to be completely anonymous. I suppose they could change the name to something better but seeing as how I only use it to browse khm websites which I don't want in my browsing history and I know other people use it only for the same reason as whell. In any case I suppose that anyone who really needs anonymity is aware what browsers mean by "private browsing". I even have to block Firefoxes tracking protection to browse my favorite "website"
- neotek 10y ago
  Of course you understand, you know as well as any of us that the average user knows next to nothing about how the Internet, their computer, or their browser works, either physically or conceptually. It's not unreasonable for a user to take Google or Mozilla or whoever at their word when they call the feature "incognito mode", or "private browsing" etc. They don't know the first thing about how their privacy is breached in the first place, so why would they know how their browser mitigates potential breaches?
throwaway235689 10y ago
Can the use of private browsing + a 3rd-party VPN at the same time be considered reasonably private?
simplehuman 10y ago
Sad that a DDG blog is on medium.com :/
- RileyKyeden 10y ago
  What's wrong with Medium? I used to run my own blog software. I don't recommend it unless you really need to micromanage the implementation. Most people do not. This is why I let Medium handle all the intricacies of publishing my blog so I can just write.

95 points by thmslee 10y ago

Personally I always believed the porn mode browsing gives two benefits: - sites don't get recorded in browser history - by not exposing your regular browsing cookies, it significantly reduces the likelihood an "embarrassing" site will somehow end up on your Facebook wall I hope I'm not wrong about the second one.

gcp 10y ago
This is correct at least for Firefox. The new Container Tabs feature works similarly: it splits cookies.

camiller 10y ago

Not really private, just keeps your local machine clean. Despite TeMPOraL's labeling it "porn mode" my most common use case is if I need to log into my Google account from my wife's laptop I'll use an Incognito mode window in Chrome so that I don't have to log her out of her Google account.

eknight15 10y ago
Is there a reason you don't use the people switcher? https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2364824?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2364824?co=GENIE.Pl...
- amorphid 10y ago
  I use the people switcher on computers I "control". It is convenient to have two accounts which stay logged in to various services. I do not like staying logged in, and might forget to log out of, computers that aren't mine.
- camiller 10y ago
  I use people switcher on my laptop to switch between my two google accounts, but on my wife's laptop I see no reason to leave crumbs of my presence behind.
- zhengyi13 10y ago
  Because that leaves your SO in the position of being able, even accidentally, to log in to your account. Further, I'd guess that even if you absolutely trust your SO not to violate your privacy, you might still reasonably distrust the platform they're working on, and you might not want to expose your account credentials on a platform that you don't directly control.
- natch 10y ago
  I see you do UX at Google. Thank you for asking users questions like this (I really hope you were asking sincerely, not rhetorically). Please talk to users more.
  - eknight15 10y ago
    Certainly. I don't work on Chrome, but I'm being sincere and I'm curious of the use case. There may be a better solution here.
- kedean 10y ago
  I don't use it because it requires that I switch back. My wife won't be bothered to deal with learning the people-switcher (there's no reason she should, it's really her laptop in question), so using incognito means that once I close the window, it's clean again. It's a lot easier to remember to close the window than it is to remember to switch back to her account. The option I finally chose to go with, is to install firefox on her computer as well. Firefox is for me, Chrome is for her. I'm an FF guy anyway. The main UX problem stands, though, it's too easy to be the wrong person.
  - gowld 10y ago
    There's no need to "Switch back" unless... oh my, your wife closes all her browser windows sometimes?!
  - _coldfire 10y ago
    I'm in the same boat, well aware of chrome option to switch accounts, but the simplicity of dual browsers wins when two people use the same login regularly. Also I get to keep up to date with changes in firefox.
- rb808 10y ago
  For me its easier to use a different browser. Chrome for her, Edge for me, Firefox for the kids.
  - jimmyswimmy 10y ago
    Exactly how I manage online personas. Firefox for my normal browsing, IE for accessing my spam accounts and anything I'd prefer not to easily link back to me. Wife uses chrome. The icons and applications look sufficiently different that there's no confusion about what persona I am in which browser. And I can have all of them up at the same time.
- ajtaylor 10y ago
  The people switcher is a godsend for web dev work. I have one for my normal work window (email, ticketing, etc), and two for various types of test accounts. It's SO useful to not have to constantly log in and out. Thank you!
AdamSC1 10y ago
That's the problem we tried to outline in this paper. If you ask the average person what "private" should mean in this context it turns out they believe it is a large set of features providing total protection. To a tech-savvy audience its more obvious that private browsing modes don't offer that. This discrepancy is something that people have genuine concerns about and want to see either more features to protect their privacy, or better transparency in naming/explaining/disclaiming these modes.
- jMyles 10y ago
  > If you ask the average person Did you actually interview her for this paper? Where'd you find her? Can I ask her a few questions when you're done? I have so much I need to know from the average person.
- eh78ssxv2f 10y ago
  I do not see results broken-down by different browsers. I am not sure about FF's privacy mode but Chrome's incognito mode clearly says: "However, you aren’t invisible. Going incognito doesn’t hide your browsing from your employer, your internet service provider, or the websites you visit." This warning appears on every tab in the incognito mode, so it is pretty visible.
  - AdamSC1 10y ago
    This is a great point. As I've noted a few times, our surveys were conducted with different question sets for every browser that made note of different features and warnings. We also took that into consideration when aggregating the results into one whitepaper. We wanted the whitepaper to be browser agnostic, this isn't about blaming specific browsers or actions. We wanted to highlight the larger issue that there is a gap in privacy education for a mainstream user and that it is something that members of technical communities can all step up and help with. As for a special note for the warnings, I would say it is akin to the Terms of Service for websites. Perfectly visible, but never really read and understood.

gcp 10y ago

The "Most common misconceptions about Private Browsing" part is actually misleading for Firefox users, because that does apply Tracking Protection in private browsing mode. So some of the top misconceptions aren't, at least not if you use Firefox. (Yes, yes, it can never be perfect, but I don't believe that invalidates the point)

AdamSC1 10y ago
DuckDuckGo employee here - I ran the survey we used in this. We had a separate question for users who noted that they used Firefox that spoke to the specific cases for that browser. The final whitepaper is browser agnostic, and these are the top misconceptions overall, but results were split out in the research phase to account for this.

konceptz 10y ago

Title is a little misleading but a good article. "Surveys done on users perceptions of private browsing" or at they titled the paper "A Study on Private Browsing: Consumer Usage, Knowledge, and Thoughts"

spaceboy 10y ago

Probably relevant: "Google removes secret agent warning from Chrome’s incognito mode" https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/app/generated_resources.grd?r1=239201&r2=239282 https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/app/... “Pages you view in this tab won’t appear in your browser history or search history, and they won’t leave other traces, like cookies, on your device after you close all incognito tabs. Any files you download or bookmarks you create will be preserved, however. Going incognito doesn’t affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of surveillance by secret agents or people standing behind you.” The new version is: Pages you view in incognito tabs won’t stick around in your browser’s history, cookie store, or search history after you’ve closed all of your incognito tabs. Any files you download or bookmarks you create will be kept. Going incognito doesn’t affect the behavior of other people, servers, software, or people standing behind you.

ams6110 10y ago
sigh nobody has a sense of humor anymore.
- gowld 10y ago
  It's not humor. Secret agents are a real problem.
  - InitialLastName 10y ago
    So are people standing behind you.
neotek 10y ago
I love to know what prompted that change, whether it was due to user feedback, or a management decision, or even just the personal preferences of the individual responsible for rewording the warning.

throwaway2016a 10y ago

"DuckDuckGo is the search engine that doesn’t track you." so obviously this article has marketing lean. While private browsing is not actually private I feel going so far as to say it does not stop websites from collecting info on you is maybe a bit too far. The site can still collect information about you, yes. But unless you sign in while in private browsing or the site is using some sort of user-agent / IP trickery it won't be automatically tied to your accounts. None of the cookies or local storage are shared across private/non private browsing. Personally, I use it mostly to see what websites look like when I'm not logged in or if I want to access something that can only be accessed while logged out without actually logging out which is surprisingly common.

AdamSC1 10y ago
There are plenty of things a browser can see without being logged in. Consider checking this page: http://webkay.robinlinus.com/ http://webkay.robinlinus.com/ Private Browsing simply prevents cookies and nothing else, and for the average person we find that is not what's expected from something defined as "private" browsing.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  I'm a full stack web developer. I'm well aware of what the HTTP headers and Javascript methods can expose even while in private. I was oversimplifying fingerprinting a bit.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mintplant 10y ago
  > Private Browsing simply prevents cookies and nothing else Not true, at least for Firefox. In Private Browsing mode, Firefox will avoid saving temporary files and other data to disk, keeping everything in RAM instead, which is wiped when Private Browsing mode is exited. This includes history, cookies, and cache data. I believe localStorage behaves differently as well. Firefox also makes an effort to block tracking scripts/servers in Private Browsing mode, using Disconnect's filter list. The Private Browsing new tab page explains this all pretty succinctly: https://i.imgur.com/MGp53eP.png https://i.imgur.com/MGp53eP.png

sjbase 10y ago

This all seems likely to be true, but the source being Duck Duck Go calls the results & methodology into question. I'd love to see an independent researcher confirm these findings.

AdamSC1 10y ago
Hey there, DuckDuckGo employee here. Would love to know why you feel our affiliation calls that into question? In the the whitepaper we disclose the full methodology, and each statistic has a margin of error calculated and added in. Feel free to review it - we're happy to answer questions!
- sjbase 10y ago
  I have to confess I didn't see the link to the whitepaper in my first read through - shame on me for commenting before I did :) I think you all did a pretty good job putting this together overall after reading through it, and I applaud the effort. That said, the critical HNer in me sees some bias in the questions and answers. Specifics: * The results on page 17 jumped out at me the most. There are 4 specific options for negative emotional reactions, and one generic positive option. It's easy to underestimate the powerful effect this has on pushing the responder to a specific answer. Imagine if your answer options were only "content, secure, informed, protected, neutral, misled" and how different your results might be. * The question for the above, specifically the tone of "[...] does not offer any additional protection [...]" is also a form of leading the responder to an answer. While the statement is mostly true, there's some contention on the point esp. regarding cookies (see the other comments on this thread). Either way, you'd get a more honest answer if you strictly list the things private browsing does, and the things it does not do in a way that's as objective and incontrovertible as possible. * It would be useful to see the benefits underlying the "correctly identified" category on page 13. I couldn't find those anywhere which was a bit suspicious. In consulting, I used to survey users on their personal security practices (password strength, adherence to policies, secure disposal, etc.) and gained a huge appreciation for how powerful bias and misinterpretation can be in surveys, and how hard it is to control. But to reiterate, I think this is overall pretty well done and has some really interesting results, esp. the usage data in the first few sections.

awinter-py 10y ago

FF tracking protection helps. Disabling JS from iffy marketing companies mostly solves the problem. (From a legal standpoint, not a security standpoint). It's illegal under wiretapping rules to share communication with a third party. (but if the user's browser hits a third-party data collection endpoint, that's somehow okay. See 'in re doubleclick'). Firefox tracking protection uses the disconnect.me list https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection/blocked https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection/blocked to get rid of all of these it can. If the adversary isn't a marketing firm that has to comply with the law, ignore the above. Then you're looking at browser flaws (canvas fingerprinting) and session inference (using client IP, URL, browser-agent, & timestamps to reconstruct identity from behavior).

unstatusthequo 10y ago

As an attorney who does digital forensics, it's most certainly not

samat 10y ago

Is it actually a misconception that private browsing prevents search engines from knowing my searches? I do search for some nasty stuff in private mode and it never pops up in ads for my main account. I do understand there might be conspiracy in Google to gather that data and link it to my account but never use it in the way I notice, but that looks like conspiracy theory to me.

AdamSC1 10y ago
Your private mode searches may not be ones that have ads for them, those sites may not use Google's re-marketing offers, the re-marketing may be offered via cookies or if they fall into an 'adult' category then you are going to see them in less locations anyway. Despite that a search engine is still able to see what you search in private browsing modes as none of it's protection change, hide or obscure your identity. If you perform a search from your IP address (or any other information that can be fingerprinted from your browser) and then do the same in private browsing mode, Google would know that it is the same user committing both searches.
twblalock 10y ago
> Is it actually a misconception that private browsing prevents search engines from knowing my searches? Of course the search engine knows what you searched for! You sent the search string from your computer to one of their servers. You'd need a way to prevent the search engine from knowing your IP address, like a proxy or Tor, in order to hide your identity.

ddito 10y ago

I really don't understand why anyone would expect private browsing to be completely anonymous. I suppose they could change the name to something better but seeing as how I only use it to browse khm websites which I don't want in my browsing history and I know other people use it only for the same reason as whell. In any case I suppose that anyone who really needs anonymity is aware what browsers mean by "private browsing". I even have to block Firefoxes tracking protection to browse my favorite "website"

neotek 10y ago
Of course you understand, you know as well as any of us that the average user knows next to nothing about how the Internet, their computer, or their browser works, either physically or conceptually. It's not unreasonable for a user to take Google or Mozilla or whoever at their word when they call the feature "incognito mode", or "private browsing" etc. They don't know the first thing about how their privacy is breached in the first place, so why would they know how their browser mitigates potential breaches?

throwaway235689 10y ago

Can the use of private browsing + a 3rd-party VPN at the same time be considered reasonably private?

simplehuman 10y ago

Sad that a DDG blog is on medium.com :/

RileyKyeden 10y ago
What's wrong with Medium? I used to run my own blog software. I don't recommend it unless you really need to micromanage the implementation. Most people do not. This is why I let Medium handle all the intricacies of publishing my blog so I can just write.