6 ms·

This lawsuit is idiotic. They're claiming Google is doing something wrong by tracking users from websites using ad tech when someone uses their browsers private

by foota 6y ago

This lawsuit is idiotic. They're claiming Google is doing something wrong by tracking users from websites using ad tech when someone uses their browsers private browsing mode.

Veen 6y ago
It's not so idiotic. Google collects information that people don't want them to collect. That arguably objectionable, even if it's not strictly illegal. It will be interesting to see whether this case gets a sympathetic judge, but I imagine it will end up being dismissed like previous lawsuits of this variety. Nice bit of publicity for the law firm though.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Every website does.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Not every website controls: the browser, analytics service across large part of the web, and sometimes the OS (Android/ChromeOS)
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      Your proposal is for Google to abuse its monopoly positions to provide a better privacy experience for its properties than for others?
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Not my proposal. Regardless, a case is being made that Google is in a position to ensure its analytics services comply with the GDPR when a browser has been put into a mode clearly intended to opt out of tracking. Other websites or services may be able to say they can't control how those browsers in such modes communicate that intent. Google cannot.
- Chabsff 6y ago
  I think the debatable point here is that the lawsuit implies that the problem is that Google is not integrating analytics and Chrome enough. Analytics works in a certain way, and chrome works in another. The expectation that because both products belong to Google, they should treat each other in a special manner (i.e. Site-side Analytics should be behaving differently when encountering a chrome browser) is pretty iffy.
Apes 6y ago
There are the data privacy laws that mandate users be able to opt of tracking, and it should be pretty clear to a non-psychopathic company that a person using the private mode on their browser is opting out of any tracking. Google is one of the biggest companies in the world. Do they really need to be wringing their users as hard as they can to milk out every last drop of ad revenue potential?
- Chabsff 6y ago
  You are asking that browsers announce to websites that the user has incognito mode enabled, which immediately opens the door to websites refusing to serve users running incognito mode at all.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    I think that's entirely fair: Websites should not track users who do not want to be tracked, but websites should decide whether or not to serve clients which aren't to be tracked.
    - Chabsff 6y ago
      Well, ideally yes, but let's be honest here. If we can't trust websites to not abuse data, how can we possibly trust them to respect a polite request not to gather the data in the first place? I would personally rather have an incognito mode feature that I have confidence performs the task it claims to do without alerting the website, than one that loudly announces its presence, on the hope that it might be respected. I don't trust Google, but I certainly don't want Google to trust random websites on my behalf.
- a9entroy 6y ago
  That's not what incognito mode is. It literally says on the first page when you open incognito window. People want to skip reading technical details when provided but then get angry when a company does the exact thing they warned about. Also where does this end? Should car dealerships be allowed to analyze your data? Cars you've bought, cars you test drove etc.?
t0mas88 6y ago
Why is it idiotic to expect Google to respect a users wish not to be tracked? Half the world has laws that require Google to ask permission. Using private browsing mode is a very clear indication the the user does not want to give them that permission. It's really not that hard. Google and Facebook just don't want to understand it.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  I was under the impression that it wasn't supposed to be possible for a website to tell that the page was loaded in incognito mode; in fact, I thought it was important that they not be able to. As such, how would the page with good analytics even know the user was incognito.
  - bubblethink 6y ago
    incognito has always been riddled with holes. It's not a security measure. Go to nytimes in incognito.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Apple also doesn't understand it as well as every browser and website in existence. This lawsuit is stupid.
  - corty 6y ago
    That the others are behaving badly as well does not excuse Googles behaviour.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      That every other website in existence is behaving "badly?" Do you think Chrome should tell the website that the user is browsing in incognito mode so that websites will treat them differently? For example, a paywall website with a free article limit would simply not show content to users saying they are in incognito mode. Enabling incognito mode in Chrome and Firefox even explains that it doesn't stop server-side tracking, so it's not even misleading.
lanevorockz 6y ago
Is the legal to tell your users you are doing something when you are intentionally not doing it? A Privacy mode that post the links you visit on twitter. ;)
brenden2 6y ago
What Google is doing is wrong. That's literally what the lawsuit is about.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  If the issue is on the collection side, what technical mechanism does Google have for identifying incognito traffic? There's already a game of whack-a-mole being played because news sites are detecting if you're in incognito mode, but that's in JS, so the access logs were already collected, and the the hacks for detecting incognito are slowly getting fixed, so it's not a viable solution. DNT is a header, but it's a preference and not legally binding. The only thing Google did that was "wrong" is that incognito gave uses the impression that they weren't being tracked externally, when in reality the only thing it does is not save your history and start with no cookies.
  - brenden2 6y ago
    What you're saying only serves to support the argument that the tracking is wrong in the first place, IMO. Google doesn't have a right to follow everyone around the web and flex their muscle just because they can. Since they have a monopoly and nobody is even close to challenging them, someone needs to step in and regulate them.
AlexandrB 6y ago
Actually I think it nicely highlights the contradictions inherent in Google's monopolistic position. The user clearly expressed an intent to browse "privately" in one Google product - Chrome. The fact that this doesn't then completely block Google Analytics or forward the preference for privacy to other Google properties is a choice that conveniently aligns with Google's ad business but ignores the intent of what the user is trying to do.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Alternatively, this is working as intended since Google isn't acting as a monopoly by tying disparate products together. You get the same experience in chrome incognito as Firefox incognito.
  - fpoling 6y ago
    Google runs both Chrome and Analytics. And they do not warn explicitly that other Google products may store the history even in the private mode. Which some may interpret that Google lies when claiming about their private mode. So the case may have merit in theory.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Quoting my chrome incognito screen: > Your activity might still be visible to: Websites you visit Your employer or school Your internet service provider
      - jlbnjmn 6y ago
        Interestingly absent is Google.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        Google only has visibility into what you're doing as a subcategory of "websites you visit", so I'm not clear on the confusion here.
dehrmann 6y ago
I agree with you, but I think the problem is a disconnect between what incognito actually does and what people think it does. That distinction is pretty obvious to people who have done any sort of web development, but it's hard to explain to the average user.

by foota 6y ago

This lawsuit is idiotic. They're claiming Google is doing something wrong by tracking users from websites using ad tech when someone uses their browsers private browsing mode.

Veen 6y ago

It's not so idiotic. Google collects information that people don't want them to collect. That arguably objectionable, even if it's not strictly illegal. It will be interesting to see whether this case gets a sympathetic judge, but I imagine it will end up being dismissed like previous lawsuits of this variety. Nice bit of publicity for the law firm though.

lern_too_spel 6y ago
Every website does.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Not every website controls: the browser, analytics service across large part of the web, and sometimes the OS (Android/ChromeOS)
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    Your proposal is for Google to abuse its monopoly positions to provide a better privacy experience for its properties than for others?
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Not my proposal. Regardless, a case is being made that Google is in a position to ensure its analytics services comply with the GDPR when a browser has been put into a mode clearly intended to opt out of tracking. Other websites or services may be able to say they can't control how those browsers in such modes communicate that intent. Google cannot.
Chabsff 6y ago
I think the debatable point here is that the lawsuit implies that the problem is that Google is not integrating analytics and Chrome enough. Analytics works in a certain way, and chrome works in another. The expectation that because both products belong to Google, they should treat each other in a special manner (i.e. Site-side Analytics should be behaving differently when encountering a chrome browser) is pretty iffy.

Apes 6y ago

There are the data privacy laws that mandate users be able to opt of tracking, and it should be pretty clear to a non-psychopathic company that a person using the private mode on their browser is opting out of any tracking. Google is one of the biggest companies in the world. Do they really need to be wringing their users as hard as they can to milk out every last drop of ad revenue potential?

Chabsff 6y ago
You are asking that browsers announce to websites that the user has incognito mode enabled, which immediately opens the door to websites refusing to serve users running incognito mode at all.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I think that's entirely fair: Websites should not track users who do not want to be tracked, but websites should decide whether or not to serve clients which aren't to be tracked.
  - Chabsff 6y ago
    Well, ideally yes, but let's be honest here. If we can't trust websites to not abuse data, how can we possibly trust them to respect a polite request not to gather the data in the first place? I would personally rather have an incognito mode feature that I have confidence performs the task it claims to do without alerting the website, than one that loudly announces its presence, on the hope that it might be respected. I don't trust Google, but I certainly don't want Google to trust random websites on my behalf.
a9entroy 6y ago
That's not what incognito mode is. It literally says on the first page when you open incognito window. People want to skip reading technical details when provided but then get angry when a company does the exact thing they warned about. Also where does this end? Should car dealerships be allowed to analyze your data? Cars you've bought, cars you test drove etc.?

t0mas88 6y ago

Why is it idiotic to expect Google to respect a users wish not to be tracked? Half the world has laws that require Google to ask permission. Using private browsing mode is a very clear indication the the user does not want to give them that permission. It's really not that hard. Google and Facebook just don't want to understand it.

RHSeeger 6y ago
I was under the impression that it wasn't supposed to be possible for a website to tell that the page was loaded in incognito mode; in fact, I thought it was important that they not be able to. As such, how would the page with good analytics even know the user was incognito.
- bubblethink 6y ago
  incognito has always been riddled with holes. It's not a security measure. Go to nytimes in incognito.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
Apple also doesn't understand it as well as every browser and website in existence. This lawsuit is stupid.
- corty 6y ago
  That the others are behaving badly as well does not excuse Googles behaviour.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    That every other website in existence is behaving "badly?" Do you think Chrome should tell the website that the user is browsing in incognito mode so that websites will treat them differently? For example, a paywall website with a free article limit would simply not show content to users saying they are in incognito mode. Enabling incognito mode in Chrome and Firefox even explains that it doesn't stop server-side tracking, so it's not even misleading.

lanevorockz 6y ago

Is the legal to tell your users you are doing something when you are intentionally not doing it? A Privacy mode that post the links you visit on twitter. ;)

brenden2 6y ago

What Google is doing is wrong. That's literally what the lawsuit is about.

dehrmann 6y ago
If the issue is on the collection side, what technical mechanism does Google have for identifying incognito traffic? There's already a game of whack-a-mole being played because news sites are detecting if you're in incognito mode, but that's in JS, so the access logs were already collected, and the the hacks for detecting incognito are slowly getting fixed, so it's not a viable solution. DNT is a header, but it's a preference and not legally binding. The only thing Google did that was "wrong" is that incognito gave uses the impression that they weren't being tracked externally, when in reality the only thing it does is not save your history and start with no cookies.
- brenden2 6y ago
  What you're saying only serves to support the argument that the tracking is wrong in the first place, IMO. Google doesn't have a right to follow everyone around the web and flex their muscle just because they can. Since they have a monopoly and nobody is even close to challenging them, someone needs to step in and regulate them.

AlexandrB 6y ago

Actually I think it nicely highlights the contradictions inherent in Google's monopolistic position. The user clearly expressed an intent to browse "privately" in one Google product - Chrome. The fact that this doesn't then completely block Google Analytics or forward the preference for privacy to other Google properties is a choice that conveniently aligns with Google's ad business but ignores the intent of what the user is trying to do.

joshuamorton 6y ago
Alternatively, this is working as intended since Google isn't acting as a monopoly by tying disparate products together. You get the same experience in chrome incognito as Firefox incognito.
- fpoling 6y ago
  Google runs both Chrome and Analytics. And they do not warn explicitly that other Google products may store the history even in the private mode. Which some may interpret that Google lies when claiming about their private mode. So the case may have merit in theory.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Quoting my chrome incognito screen: > Your activity might still be visible to: Websites you visit Your employer or school Your internet service provider
    - jlbnjmn 6y ago
      Interestingly absent is Google.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Google only has visibility into what you're doing as a subcategory of "websites you visit", so I'm not clear on the confusion here.

dehrmann 6y ago

I agree with you, but I think the problem is a disconnect between what incognito actually does and what people think it does. That distinction is pretty obvious to people who have done any sort of web development, but it's hard to explain to the average user.