11 ms·

Right. Open up an incognito window right now, and you'll see, in plain English, front and center: >Your activity might still be visible to websites you visit.

Right. Open up an incognito window right now, and you'll see, in plain English, front and center: >Your activity might still be visible to websites you visit. The error here is in treating all of Google and all of data as monoliths. The first paragraph of the article makes this... let's be generous and call it an honest mistake: > The Alphabet Inc. unit says activating the stealth mode in Chrome, or “private browsing” in other browsers, means the company won’t “remember your activity.” Yeah, I doubt anyone from Google says that, which is why they had to use phrases instead of sentences in quotes. Chrome won't remember your activity. That doesn't mean Google won't if they know who you are for some other reason.

sammorrowdrums 6y ago
And outside of Tor, your public IP says a lot... never mind profiling. It would be very hard to prevent, especially for the least legitimate tracking, and then if incognito makes itself too obvious, that info is also interesting for tracking... Privacy is hard
- gruez 6y ago
  >and then if incognito makes itself too obvious, that info is also interesting for tracking... AFAIK that's already trivially detectable on most (all?) browsers.
  - sammorrowdrums 6y ago
    Yeah, and there are some excellent fingerprinting testing sites that show it that even from a single website visit you can be narrowed down substantially, and from there a few more visits to sites working together and they could easily pin you down to an exact person. The discussion about malicious actors is insane, even legitimate ones can do it easily.
- swiley 6y ago
  Eventually everyone will be forced to use TOR because of stuff like this.
- wtetzner 6y ago
  Sure, but Google could honor Dot Not Track, and Chrome could send it when in Incognito mode.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  [insert youtube vpn ad here]
treve 6y ago
Yes, but Chrome is still google. If the left hand suggests using this Google product means privacy and trust, but the right hand still exploits you, I do think there's an issue. They can twist the words to be technically accurate, but not everyone is going to understand this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- martamorena943 6y ago
  No there really is not. You can't always "twist" the words how you need it, otherwise you behave just like Google. Chrome is a separate product. It's a browser. If it says that Chrome won't remember history in private mode, but then you go and visit a Google website, then this website can still track you the same as any other website in private mode. You can't really say "Oh Google should be broken up and be treated as separate entities (at least when it suits me)" and then start complaining "Oh Chrome and GMail are acting like separate entities but they should be really acting as if they were the same thing (at least when it suits me)" ... lol Private mode never was meant to be a privacy feature against websites. Private mode is to prevent your LOCAL history from containing anything you searched/visited and the legit use case is sharing of the computer with other members of family, for instance. For websites, nothing really changes. They can still track you all the way they want.
  - malux85 6y ago
    I love these pro-google accounts on hacker news "Signed up 6 minutes ago" <MASSIVE PRO GOOGLE RANT> So funny
    - Tenoke 6y ago
      Throwaways are important for being able to discuss opinions you might not want to on your main. Treating them as unacceptable worsens the quality of discussion here. I somewhat agree with the point they made and this is not a throwaway if that helps.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
GeekyBear 6y ago
Oddly, it doesn't tell you that Google itself will still track you through Google Analytics. Something that is under Google's control.
majormajor 6y ago
> >Your activity might still be visible to websites you visit. This disclosure is a bit weak, really. I could visit no Google websites and still be tracked by them, and god knows who else, and that's where it gets really fuzzy around what things mean, I think.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  You could be tracked by anyone, not just Google. Private browsing doesn't save your search history, clears your cookies/sessions, doesn't save auto-complete suggestions. This is more about keeping things private from other people who might use your computer. But as far as websites' ability to track you this isn't really all that effective. Yes, logging out of all your other accounts goes a long way but there's still plenty of ways to track people. Incognito mode does little against sites that try to fingerprint browsers.
  - LexGray 6y ago
    It is close to fraud when you say “could be tracked” in quotes when you mean “almost every site you visit Alphabet will track you even when you configure our software otherwise”.
    - sir_bearington 6y ago
      No, it's closer to "every site you could visit - Facebook, Amazon, Reddit, Instagram, etc. - can track you. And since Incognito mode doesn't announce when it's set, Alphabet is no different." As far as I understand it, Incognito appears just like any other chrome browser. It seems like you want Aplhabet websites to specifically exempt Incognito browsers from data collection. That would require building mechanisms to identify incognito browsers. That makes it easier for websites to block content if they detect private browsing, which is a valid concern. And it's really hard to call it fraud when Incognito mode explicitly tell it's users what it does: Chrome won't save the following information: - Your browsing history - Cookies and site data - Information entered in forms Your activity might still be visible to: - Websites you visit - Your employer or school - Your internet service provider Even before I knew how to program I understood that Incognito didn't save browsing history but websites could still see your IP address, and your ISP could see what domains you hit. I'm really not seeing anything remotely close to fraud here. This headline makes it sound like they're breaching people's privacy, when in reality it's just the fact that Incognito mode is a setting on your browser to clear cookies and not save browsing history - not some magically spell that prevents websites from tracking you.
reaperducer 6y ago
Open up an incognito window right now, and you'll see, in plain English, front and center: >Your activity might still be visible to websites you visit. Maybe the problem could be solved by using a description other than "incognito" and an icon of a spy, generally considered a person who would be hidden or stealthy. Maybe "Reduced Tracking Mode," or something more honest.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  The point has always been painfully straightforward, your browser is the one who stops tracking your browsing activity, not the sites you visit. There's even a warning about that
- andyfleming 6y ago
  "Reduced Tracking" is partly the misnomer though. It's not less tracking, right? It's just a temporary separate browsing session with history turned off. The only thing that makes it less tracking is that it might not be associated with the profiles you're logged into in your normal browsing profile.
- rdiddly 6y ago
  Assuming someone forces Google to do that in Chrome (which is pretty much the only way it would happen), how about calling it "Forgetful Mode." Because by turning it on you're telling the browser not to remember where you've been. I don't know if that would fully clear up the central misconception here, namely that in that case the only person not gathering data about your browsing is you. But at least it hints at it. When it's turned on, you're basically wandering around forgetting where you've been; hence maybe the icon should be an old man hunched over with a cane and little dots and curliques surrounding his head indicating a diffuse cognitive state!
danudey 6y ago
I think there's another issue here though. If I turn on Incognito mode and then go to Amazon, Amazon can obviously see what I'm doing. If I log into Amazon, then Amazon knows it's me and can track that. I think that's reasonable, but people didn't understand that that's the case and that's why Google has that disclaimer there. That's different from browser fingerprinting[1] though. Fingerprinting techniques exist which can tell that you're you even if you're in incognito mode. For example, if you're visiting Pornhub every day in incognito mode, the company can still build a pretty reliable profile of you. If you then visit them not in incognito mode once, they may be able to take that incognito profile and associate it with you a lot more closely. Likewise, if you visit Amazon from your browser all the time and then visit them in incognito mode, these fingerprinting techniques allow Amazon to know it's you already; they can "play dumb" by keeping you logged out, not showing you recommendations, etc., but they can still figure out it's you and use that to continue to build a profile on you. The caveat here is that this is much more useful for some people than others. If I visit HN, then HN can fingerprint me in Incognito or not, but that's not extremely useful. If I visit literally anywhere else, Google/Doubleclick/etc. can fingerprint my browser, and since extensions like ad/tracker/etc. blockers don't work by default in incognito mode, they could potentially get an even better profile of you from Incognito mode than not. Pretty gross, honestly. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2018/07/26/this-is-your-digital-fingerprint/ https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2018/07/26/this-is-...
- jb775 6y ago
  Yeah and google can do all of the above considering just about every website uses google analytics and all that analytics data is sent back to google's servers. Then they can sweep up whatever they missed using Chrome or Android or google-owned service metadata (i.e. google search, google maps, etc). Google Analytics is the service that connects it all and google has convinced companies to give them this data access for free. (well, in exchange for visibility to parts of that data displayed on fancy trinkets)
  - amelius 6y ago
    This is the web-equivalent of omnipresent facial recognition tied to a central database. Like fingerprinting, facial recognition is not perfect (e.g. you can have a lookalike, twin, etc.) but is still damn frightening. Perhaps this viewpoint can convince some more people of Google's (potential) evilness.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> error here is in treating all of Google and all of data as monoliths I don't think that's an error. There is a material difference between me promising you "I won't eat your berries" and my neighbor eating your berries, and my making that promise and then eating them. If Google is promising not to track you, Google shouldn't be tracking you. “We are bad at coördinating” isn’t a valid excuse. Coördination is the cost of the conglomerate.
andai 6y ago
> Chrome won't remember your activity. That doesn't mean Google won't if they know who you are for some other reason. This has always kinda bugged me. I don't know what the hell I was doing yesterday at 13:42, but chances are Google does. Likewise, my phone company (and by extension, the government) knows where I was at any given moment in the last 15 years.

sammorrowdrums 6y ago

And outside of Tor, your public IP says a lot... never mind profiling. It would be very hard to prevent, especially for the least legitimate tracking, and then if incognito makes itself too obvious, that info is also interesting for tracking... Privacy is hard

gruez 6y ago
>and then if incognito makes itself too obvious, that info is also interesting for tracking... AFAIK that's already trivially detectable on most (all?) browsers.
- sammorrowdrums 6y ago
  Yeah, and there are some excellent fingerprinting testing sites that show it that even from a single website visit you can be narrowed down substantially, and from there a few more visits to sites working together and they could easily pin you down to an exact person. The discussion about malicious actors is insane, even legitimate ones can do it easily.
swiley 6y ago
Eventually everyone will be forced to use TOR because of stuff like this.
wtetzner 6y ago
Sure, but Google could honor Dot Not Track, and Chrome could send it when in Incognito mode.
LegitShady 6y ago
[insert youtube vpn ad here]

treve 6y ago

Yes, but Chrome is still google. If the left hand suggests using this Google product means privacy and trust, but the right hand still exploits you, I do think there's an issue. They can twist the words to be technically accurate, but not everyone is going to understand this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
martamorena943 6y ago
No there really is not. You can't always "twist" the words how you need it, otherwise you behave just like Google. Chrome is a separate product. It's a browser. If it says that Chrome won't remember history in private mode, but then you go and visit a Google website, then this website can still track you the same as any other website in private mode. You can't really say "Oh Google should be broken up and be treated as separate entities (at least when it suits me)" and then start complaining "Oh Chrome and GMail are acting like separate entities but they should be really acting as if they were the same thing (at least when it suits me)" ... lol Private mode never was meant to be a privacy feature against websites. Private mode is to prevent your LOCAL history from containing anything you searched/visited and the legit use case is sharing of the computer with other members of family, for instance. For websites, nothing really changes. They can still track you all the way they want.
- malux85 6y ago
  I love these pro-google accounts on hacker news "Signed up 6 minutes ago" <MASSIVE PRO GOOGLE RANT> So funny
  - Tenoke 6y ago
    Throwaways are important for being able to discuss opinions you might not want to on your main. Treating them as unacceptable worsens the quality of discussion here. I somewhat agree with the point they made and this is not a throwaway if that helps.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

GeekyBear 6y ago

Oddly, it doesn't tell you that Google itself will still track you through Google Analytics. Something that is under Google's control.

majormajor 6y ago

> >Your activity might still be visible to websites you visit. This disclosure is a bit weak, really. I could visit no Google websites and still be tracked by them, and god knows who else, and that's where it gets really fuzzy around what things mean, I think.

sir_bearington 6y ago
You could be tracked by anyone, not just Google. Private browsing doesn't save your search history, clears your cookies/sessions, doesn't save auto-complete suggestions. This is more about keeping things private from other people who might use your computer. But as far as websites' ability to track you this isn't really all that effective. Yes, logging out of all your other accounts goes a long way but there's still plenty of ways to track people. Incognito mode does little against sites that try to fingerprint browsers.
- LexGray 6y ago
  It is close to fraud when you say “could be tracked” in quotes when you mean “almost every site you visit Alphabet will track you even when you configure our software otherwise”.
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    No, it's closer to "every site you could visit - Facebook, Amazon, Reddit, Instagram, etc. - can track you. And since Incognito mode doesn't announce when it's set, Alphabet is no different." As far as I understand it, Incognito appears just like any other chrome browser. It seems like you want Aplhabet websites to specifically exempt Incognito browsers from data collection. That would require building mechanisms to identify incognito browsers. That makes it easier for websites to block content if they detect private browsing, which is a valid concern. And it's really hard to call it fraud when Incognito mode explicitly tell it's users what it does: Chrome won't save the following information: - Your browsing history - Cookies and site data - Information entered in forms Your activity might still be visible to: - Websites you visit - Your employer or school - Your internet service provider Even before I knew how to program I understood that Incognito didn't save browsing history but websites could still see your IP address, and your ISP could see what domains you hit. I'm really not seeing anything remotely close to fraud here. This headline makes it sound like they're breaching people's privacy, when in reality it's just the fact that Incognito mode is a setting on your browser to clear cookies and not save browsing history - not some magically spell that prevents websites from tracking you.

reaperducer 6y ago

Open up an incognito window right now, and you'll see, in plain English, front and center: >Your activity might still be visible to websites you visit. Maybe the problem could be solved by using a description other than "incognito" and an icon of a spy, generally considered a person who would be hidden or stealthy. Maybe "Reduced Tracking Mode," or something more honest.

BoorishBears 6y ago
The point has always been painfully straightforward, your browser is the one who stops tracking your browsing activity, not the sites you visit. There's even a warning about that
andyfleming 6y ago
"Reduced Tracking" is partly the misnomer though. It's not less tracking, right? It's just a temporary separate browsing session with history turned off. The only thing that makes it less tracking is that it might not be associated with the profiles you're logged into in your normal browsing profile.
rdiddly 6y ago
Assuming someone forces Google to do that in Chrome (which is pretty much the only way it would happen), how about calling it "Forgetful Mode." Because by turning it on you're telling the browser not to remember where you've been. I don't know if that would fully clear up the central misconception here, namely that in that case the only person not gathering data about your browsing is you. But at least it hints at it. When it's turned on, you're basically wandering around forgetting where you've been; hence maybe the icon should be an old man hunched over with a cane and little dots and curliques surrounding his head indicating a diffuse cognitive state!

danudey 6y ago

I think there's another issue here though. If I turn on Incognito mode and then go to Amazon, Amazon can obviously see what I'm doing. If I log into Amazon, then Amazon knows it's me and can track that. I think that's reasonable, but people didn't understand that that's the case and that's why Google has that disclaimer there. That's different from browser fingerprinting[1] though. Fingerprinting techniques exist which can tell that you're you even if you're in incognito mode. For example, if you're visiting Pornhub every day in incognito mode, the company can still build a pretty reliable profile of you. If you then visit them not in incognito mode once, they may be able to take that incognito profile and associate it with you a lot more closely. Likewise, if you visit Amazon from your browser all the time and then visit them in incognito mode, these fingerprinting techniques allow Amazon to know it's you already; they can "play dumb" by keeping you logged out, not showing you recommendations, etc., but they can still figure out it's you and use that to continue to build a profile on you. The caveat here is that this is much more useful for some people than others. If I visit HN, then HN can fingerprint me in Incognito or not, but that's not extremely useful. If I visit literally anywhere else, Google/Doubleclick/etc. can fingerprint my browser, and since extensions like ad/tracker/etc. blockers don't work by default in incognito mode, they could potentially get an even better profile of you from Incognito mode than not. Pretty gross, honestly. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2018/07/26/this-is-your-digital-fingerprint/ https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2018/07/26/this-is-...

jb775 6y ago
Yeah and google can do all of the above considering just about every website uses google analytics and all that analytics data is sent back to google's servers. Then they can sweep up whatever they missed using Chrome or Android or google-owned service metadata (i.e. google search, google maps, etc). Google Analytics is the service that connects it all and google has convinced companies to give them this data access for free. (well, in exchange for visibility to parts of that data displayed on fancy trinkets)
- amelius 6y ago
  This is the web-equivalent of omnipresent facial recognition tied to a central database. Like fingerprinting, facial recognition is not perfect (e.g. you can have a lookalike, twin, etc.) but is still damn frightening. Perhaps this viewpoint can convince some more people of Google's (potential) evilness.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> error here is in treating all of Google and all of data as monoliths I don't think that's an error. There is a material difference between me promising you "I won't eat your berries" and my neighbor eating your berries, and my making that promise and then eating them. If Google is promising not to track you, Google shouldn't be tracking you. “We are bad at coördinating” isn’t a valid excuse. Coördination is the cost of the conglomerate.

andai 6y ago

> Chrome won't remember your activity. That doesn't mean Google won't if they know who you are for some other reason. This has always kinda bugged me. I don't know what the hell I was doing yesterday at 13:42, but chances are Google does. Likewise, my phone company (and by extension, the government) knows where I was at any given moment in the last 15 years.