4 ms·

> It doesn't seem like the complaint is that Chrome collects data on you in "Incognito" mode, rather that websites (e.g. Google Analytics) still collect on you

> It doesn't seem like the complaint is that Chrome collects data on you in "Incognito" mode, rather that websites (e.g. Google Analytics) still collect on you in "Incognito" mode. Isn't that a distinction without a difference though? It's not Chrome, it's Google Analytics. It's all Google in the end, isn't it?

solidsnack9000 6y ago
It's all stuff from Google but in the hands of different people. Google Analytics is installed by the owner of the website; it makes a promise to them: it collects everything it can. If Google Analytics actually ignored data from Chrome in Incognito mode, it raises some questions: * How does it detect that, exactly? * Is there an unfair competition aspect to it? What about other browsers, not from Google?
- vinger 6y ago
  What other browser hold 70/80% of the market?
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
  Yeah, making incognito mode detectable would be a huge privacy issue: it would enable blocking users based on incognito and all sorts of other bad issues. If incognito mode is undetectable, there’s no way for Google Analytics to distinguish between “cross-device” traffic from an incognito window vs. from a phone and a laptop. Whether or not cross-decide tracking is good or bad, it’s irrelevant to this question.
  - postalrat 6y ago
    How is blocking incognito a bad thing? Right there it should tell the user they need to avoid that site at any price. I'm pretty sure incognito is detectable right now. I'm always going to assume it is.
- bee_rider 6y ago
  That second point is really interesting. It seems sketchy on both ends, really. Either they are intentionally circumventing their own privacy feature, or they are giving their own browser an unfair competitive advantage. Huh, maybe the level of integration here is just inherently problematic and companies shouldn't try to fulfill every role in the market.
- unilynx 6y ago
  > If Google Analytics actually ignored data from Chrome in Incognito mode, it raises some questions: How does it detect that, exactly? The most honest implementation would be to set the DNT header in incognito mode (as Firefox apparently does) and to have Analytics honor it. Does not require anything shady/anticompetitive
  - captn3m0 6y ago
    This. Would be amazing to have a ruling enforcing DNT on GA, even if for Incognito since that gives backing to the DNT header, which has mostly been "don't honor" for advertisers.
    - d1zzy 6y ago
      As long as I can disable it (because DNT provides a pretty strong identification signal right now).
- josefx 6y ago
  > How does it detect that, exactly? Detect that chrome didn't send the x-client-data id it sends to every google owned domain. Oh, wait, it probably still does that in incognito mode.
ttt0 6y ago
Maybe it's the perfect time to seriously consider whether Google should be split up. They control everything. From a nameserver, through a web browser, to online services and advertisement.
TheRealPomax 6y ago
Not in court, no. In court that is a huge difference, because Google is a company, Chrome is a product, and Google Analytics is a technology, and those are completely different things. A good lawyer could quite successfully argue that all three being "Google" is not sufficient for the public to reasonably expect that "private browsing" means Google will still be monitoring you. And while Google would argue that its EULA no doubt contains a clause along those lines, the deception is still there, and can still be litigated (even if the verdict ends up being "this is deceptive and you must change this aspect of your product" without this particular thing, among many many others, requiring punitive measures)
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  This assertion without an argument is not especially helpful. What legal distinction must hold the line here, in your view? Why is it insufficient to suggest that a user in a Google Chrome Incognito window might reasonably expect Google to be on notice that they do not consent to Google tracking? Edit: the parent has since been edited. It had said only "Not in court, no. In court that is a huge difference."
  - hojjat12000 6y ago
    Because "incognito mode" is not about tracking! It is about saving information on your local machine. If you are in incognito mode and log into Gmail, you will see your own email! You are not incognito to Gmail. It used to be called "porn mode". I think that's a better name for incognito. It is there to stop others who use your computer to spy on you. Ofcourse you can use incognito (assuming you don't log into anything) and be reasonably anonymous (there are many other things that can track you even in incognito). I think it just need a rebranding. I vote "porn mode".
    - xiphias2 6y ago
      Porn mode is also about companies and governments finding out information that they can use to blackmail you.
    - 6y ago
GeneralMayhem 6y ago
No. Chrome is doing exactly what it says it is. It's different data, used for different purposes, by different entities. That's a huge legal difference, and also a significant practical one.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  No. Chrome is owned by Google. Claiming otherwise is like punching someone in the face with your right hand, and then telling the judge your right hand is a separate entity.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  Or it's by the different parts of the same entity. Why are you confident that Google's internal choices about organizing their business are what win the day here, rather than Google's interface with the consumer?
- ttt0 6y ago
  Is it? What about X-Client-Data header?
root_axis 6y ago
The difference seems pretty meaningful. Google analytics really has nothing to do with Chrome in this context, the same thing would be true in any browser visiting a site with Google analytics tracking.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Chrome is designed to give Google control of the information it collects. That is the only reason it exists. It has everything to do with GA. They're not burning millions on developers out of goodwill.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > Chrome is designed to give Google control of the information it collects Sure, but chrome does not do this in incognito mode, same as any other private mode browser, there's nothing specific about chrome that allows GA to collect your analytics in incognito mode, GA can do so in any browser.
  - d1zzy 6y ago
    Says who? Not according to the public discussions at the time it was started.
7800 6y ago
Incognito mode isn’t privacy. It just keeps cookies and cache cleared initially for that incognito session. That’s like Firefox, etc. The EU and California notion that disabling cookies stops companies from tracking you is also false. Everything between you and the site can track you, and the site could track you without cookies. Even hiding your IP via using a VPN doesn’t protect privacy as much as you’d think, somewhat depending on the VPN provider and those interested. Tor? Not always private. If you don’t believe me, search for it and show me how to prove that it is or could be fully. And it makes you a target; why do you need that privacy, they ask? Privacy is a grey area.
fchu 6y ago
Not quite. Having a blanket "Google doesn't track you" statement doesn't capture the complexity of reality: what if the website you're browsing is using Firebase for their authentication, or Google Pay for payment. I'm certain most users would want the website to function correctly, otherwise it defeats the point of using incognito. In all of these cases, Google will have a record of you, even if those records are not actively joined. Where do you draw the line?

solidsnack9000 6y ago

It's all stuff from Google but in the hands of different people. Google Analytics is installed by the owner of the website; it makes a promise to them: it collects everything it can. If Google Analytics actually ignored data from Chrome in Incognito mode, it raises some questions: * How does it detect that, exactly? * Is there an unfair competition aspect to it? What about other browsers, not from Google?

vinger 6y ago
What other browser hold 70/80% of the market?
fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
Yeah, making incognito mode detectable would be a huge privacy issue: it would enable blocking users based on incognito and all sorts of other bad issues. If incognito mode is undetectable, there’s no way for Google Analytics to distinguish between “cross-device” traffic from an incognito window vs. from a phone and a laptop. Whether or not cross-decide tracking is good or bad, it’s irrelevant to this question.
- postalrat 6y ago
  How is blocking incognito a bad thing? Right there it should tell the user they need to avoid that site at any price. I'm pretty sure incognito is detectable right now. I'm always going to assume it is.
bee_rider 6y ago
That second point is really interesting. It seems sketchy on both ends, really. Either they are intentionally circumventing their own privacy feature, or they are giving their own browser an unfair competitive advantage. Huh, maybe the level of integration here is just inherently problematic and companies shouldn't try to fulfill every role in the market.
unilynx 6y ago
> If Google Analytics actually ignored data from Chrome in Incognito mode, it raises some questions: How does it detect that, exactly? The most honest implementation would be to set the DNT header in incognito mode (as Firefox apparently does) and to have Analytics honor it. Does not require anything shady/anticompetitive
- captn3m0 6y ago
  This. Would be amazing to have a ruling enforcing DNT on GA, even if for Incognito since that gives backing to the DNT header, which has mostly been "don't honor" for advertisers.
  - d1zzy 6y ago
    As long as I can disable it (because DNT provides a pretty strong identification signal right now).
josefx 6y ago
> How does it detect that, exactly? Detect that chrome didn't send the x-client-data id it sends to every google owned domain. Oh, wait, it probably still does that in incognito mode.

ttt0 6y ago

Maybe it's the perfect time to seriously consider whether Google should be split up. They control everything. From a nameserver, through a web browser, to online services and advertisement.

TheRealPomax 6y ago

Not in court, no. In court that is a huge difference, because Google is a company, Chrome is a product, and Google Analytics is a technology, and those are completely different things. A good lawyer could quite successfully argue that all three being "Google" is not sufficient for the public to reasonably expect that "private browsing" means Google will still be monitoring you. And while Google would argue that its EULA no doubt contains a clause along those lines, the deception is still there, and can still be litigated (even if the verdict ends up being "this is deceptive and you must change this aspect of your product" without this particular thing, among many many others, requiring punitive measures)

GavinMcG 6y ago
This assertion without an argument is not especially helpful. What legal distinction must hold the line here, in your view? Why is it insufficient to suggest that a user in a Google Chrome Incognito window might reasonably expect Google to be on notice that they do not consent to Google tracking? Edit: the parent has since been edited. It had said only "Not in court, no. In court that is a huge difference."
- hojjat12000 6y ago
  Because "incognito mode" is not about tracking! It is about saving information on your local machine. If you are in incognito mode and log into Gmail, you will see your own email! You are not incognito to Gmail. It used to be called "porn mode". I think that's a better name for incognito. It is there to stop others who use your computer to spy on you. Ofcourse you can use incognito (assuming you don't log into anything) and be reasonably anonymous (there are many other things that can track you even in incognito). I think it just need a rebranding. I vote "porn mode".
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    Porn mode is also about companies and governments finding out information that they can use to blackmail you.
  - 6y ago

GeneralMayhem 6y ago

No. Chrome is doing exactly what it says it is. It's different data, used for different purposes, by different entities. That's a huge legal difference, and also a significant practical one.

loveistheanswer 6y ago
No. Chrome is owned by Google. Claiming otherwise is like punching someone in the face with your right hand, and then telling the judge your right hand is a separate entity.
GavinMcG 6y ago
Or it's by the different parts of the same entity. Why are you confident that Google's internal choices about organizing their business are what win the day here, rather than Google's interface with the consumer?
ttt0 6y ago
Is it? What about X-Client-Data header?

root_axis 6y ago

The difference seems pretty meaningful. Google analytics really has nothing to do with Chrome in this context, the same thing would be true in any browser visiting a site with Google analytics tracking.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Chrome is designed to give Google control of the information it collects. That is the only reason it exists. It has everything to do with GA. They're not burning millions on developers out of goodwill.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > Chrome is designed to give Google control of the information it collects Sure, but chrome does not do this in incognito mode, same as any other private mode browser, there's nothing specific about chrome that allows GA to collect your analytics in incognito mode, GA can do so in any browser.
- d1zzy 6y ago
  Says who? Not according to the public discussions at the time it was started.

7800 6y ago

Incognito mode isn’t privacy. It just keeps cookies and cache cleared initially for that incognito session. That’s like Firefox, etc. The EU and California notion that disabling cookies stops companies from tracking you is also false. Everything between you and the site can track you, and the site could track you without cookies. Even hiding your IP via using a VPN doesn’t protect privacy as much as you’d think, somewhat depending on the VPN provider and those interested. Tor? Not always private. If you don’t believe me, search for it and show me how to prove that it is or could be fully. And it makes you a target; why do you need that privacy, they ask? Privacy is a grey area.

fchu 6y ago

Not quite. Having a blanket "Google doesn't track you" statement doesn't capture the complexity of reality: what if the website you're browsing is using Firebase for their authentication, or Google Pay for payment. I'm certain most users would want the website to function correctly, otherwise it defeats the point of using incognito. In all of these cases, Google will have a record of you, even if those records are not actively joined. Where do you draw the line?