3 ms·

Google faces $5B shakedown for allowing JS to work in incognito mode

akersten 6y ago
For real. Many of the anti-Google comments here are injecting their own fantasies for what this lawsuit could be about, celebrating it as some kind of victory towards user privacy - which, to be fair, is a discussion that needs to be had - but this lawsuit isn't that. This lawsuit is literally "I think incognito mode should specifically stop Google Analytics, a website feature, from tracking me" even though the first thing you see when you open an incognito window is that "this doesn't stop websites from tracking you." What do they want Google to do, lean in further towards monopolistic abuse and give Chrome Incognito special treatment when its users are on a site using Google Analytics?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Apes 6y ago
What is with this consistent gas lighting? These articles mention Chrome Incognito, and the laser focus gas lighting is consistently that "of course you can be tracked in Chrome Incognito, why are these people SO STUPID?" This has nothing to do with the fact that you can theoretically track users in Incognito mode. You could be using Firefox Privacy mode, and the problem would be exactly the same. It's that Google's services are tracking users who are clearly indicating they don't want to be tracked. If Google built their whole company around relying on bad faith encounters with their customers, and it's going to be painful for them to unwind, then boo-fucking-hoo. Do dumb shit, get dumb rewards.
- judge2020 6y ago
  This is a problem with the article. "for tracking people in incognito mode" would almost certainly indicate that they claim incognito mode is an end-all for GA/Ads tracking, yet the actual case complains about (in broader terms of course): > To prevent information from being shared with Google, Google recommends that its consumers need only launch a browser such as Google Chrome, Safari, Microsoft Edge, or Firefox in “private browsing mode. Both statements are untrue. ” This type of comment is prevalent in this thread because neither this article nor the original article makes this distinction or goes into depth about what the lawsuit really targets. The average HN user doesn't have a pacer account or the patience to go searching through pacer, so we can only rely on news sites to provide good information (especially when they don't even upload the complaint to document cloud). complaint: https://i.judge.sh/specific/Sia/520-cv-03664-LHK-1-main.pdf https://i.judge.sh/specific/Sia/520-cv-03664-LHK-1-main.pdf

For real. Many of the anti-Google comments here are injecting their own fantasies for what this lawsuit could be about, celebrating it as some kind of victory towards user privacy - which, to be fair, is a discussion that needs to be had - but this lawsuit isn't that. This lawsuit is literally "I think incognito mode should specifically stop Google Analytics, a website feature, from tracking me" even though the first thing you see when you open an incognito window is that "this doesn't stop websites from tracking you." What do they want Google to do, lean in further towards monopolistic abuse and give Chrome Incognito special treatment when its users are on a site using Google Analytics?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Apes 6y ago

What is with this consistent gas lighting? These articles mention Chrome Incognito, and the laser focus gas lighting is consistently that "of course you can be tracked in Chrome Incognito, why are these people SO STUPID?" This has nothing to do with the fact that you can theoretically track users in Incognito mode. You could be using Firefox Privacy mode, and the problem would be exactly the same. It's that Google's services are tracking users who are clearly indicating they don't want to be tracked. If Google built their whole company around relying on bad faith encounters with their customers, and it's going to be painful for them to unwind, then boo-fucking-hoo. Do dumb shit, get dumb rewards.

judge2020 6y ago
This is a problem with the article. "for tracking people in incognito mode" would almost certainly indicate that they claim incognito mode is an end-all for GA/Ads tracking, yet the actual case complains about (in broader terms of course): > To prevent information from being shared with Google, Google recommends that its consumers need only launch a browser such as Google Chrome, Safari, Microsoft Edge, or Firefox in “private browsing mode. Both statements are untrue. ” This type of comment is prevalent in this thread because neither this article nor the original article makes this distinction or goes into depth about what the lawsuit really targets. The average HN user doesn't have a pacer account or the patience to go searching through pacer, so we can only rely on news sites to provide good information (especially when they don't even upload the complaint to document cloud). complaint: https://i.judge.sh/specific/Sia/520-cv-03664-LHK-1-main.pdf https://i.judge.sh/specific/Sia/520-cv-03664-LHK-1-main.pdf