6 ms·

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.

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]
- crazygringo 6y ago
  Please read the HN guidelines on commenting. You're attacking the commenter's account, assuming bad faith, and name-calling their argument a "rant" instead of responding to the actual argument they're making. My account has been around for a long time and I agree with them. It's a well-reasoned explanation. It is correct on the purpose of incognito mode (to protect privacy locally only, e.g. from family) as well as the obvious point that if you're using Google.com while in incognito mode (very common), it's tracking you as it would anywhere. Websites aren't even supposed to know you're in incognito mode. Incognito means and has always meant "fresh browser tab with no history". It has never meant no tracking.
  - malux85 6y ago
    No I'm not, I said "I love these accounts", I find them enormously entertaining
    - eagsalazar2 6y ago
      Just apologize for baselessly attacking the gp and admit your condescending "high ground" is indefensible. I've done it on HN before, it feels pretty good vs continuing to defend a rash comment.
    - dang 6y ago
      Please don't post unsubstantive comments or flamebait to HN. Please do follow the site guidelines. You've broken them badly in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- eagsalazar2 6y ago
  @malux85, except their point is pretty solid. At the very least martamorena943 made a coherent argument to support a point of view they are sharing politely. None of which you have bothered to do at all, in spite of (or I guess because of) the condescending high ground you feel entitled to.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
"Google. Chrome is a separate product" So basically: "Your honour, I can prove I didn't rob John, I had my brother do it for me!"
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  The US government does the exact same to circumvent the 4A.
  - ruined 6y ago
    which is likewise reprehensible. is google going to wait until there's regular street fighting in cities across the nation before they change their surveillance behavior?
wtetzner 6y ago
I mean, Firefox sends Do Not Track when in private browsing. So clearly it's trying to do more than just hide local history. It obviously can't guarantee it, but it's trying. Chrome is not, and it seems pretty clear that it's not because that would hurt Google's bottom line. There's no conflict here between "Google shouldn't track you" and "Google should be split up".
- vntok 6y ago
  > I mean, Firefox sends Do Not Track when in private browsing. So clearly it's trying to do more than just hide local history. It obviously can't guarantee it, but it's trying. You got scammed by Mozilla if you think that. Please have a deep look at the various documentation on how the Internet works and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not. This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares.
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    > Please have a deep look at the various documentation on how the Internet works Wow. I understand how the internet works, but thanks for the personal attack. > ... and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not. Of course, and Google controls the receiving server in this case. If they honored the Do-Not-Track header, and if Chrome sent it, users would be better off. Of course browsers can't control what all servers will do. But by sending it, servers that do honor it will. > This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares. You seem to be saying that because not all services honor the header, it should never be sent. I would say that sending it is better than not sending it, because some services do honor it. And the fact that Google doesn't honor it is telling itself. Firefox obviously does try, and DNT is not the only proof. They have put in a ton of work to make fingerprinting harder.
feoren 6y ago
Two separate issues: 1) Chrome should enable the Do Not Track header when in private browsing, as any reasonable person would expect they would. 2) Google websites and analytics should respect Do Not Track. I'm repeating what others have said but I think it's important to separate these out as different issues, because it completely nullifies everything you just said -- both are strong arguments on their own, and Chrome being a Google product is completely irrelevant to both.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  Except Do Not Track basically died in 2018. [1] The W3C abandoned trying to standardize it, and virtually no websites pay attention to it, because the legislative efforts behind it fell apart. It's merely a "feel good" HTTP header that does virtually nothing whatsoever in practice. I also disagree that "any reasonable person" would expect the header to be used in private browsing. Safari invented private browsing in 2005, and Chrome Incognito mode launched in 2008. Do Not Track didn't even exist as a concept back then. Incognito mode was never intended to be anti-tracking. It's only ever been intended to hide your browsing history locally, e.g. from family members. Tracking protection has an entirely different purpose. And if you want protection from tracking, you'd presumably want it in all windows, not just incognito windows, right? These are the important issues to be kept separate. Anti-tracking is something that should be consistent across all browser windows. It has nothing to do with Incognito. Incognito is about not saving browser history locally. Totally separate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    > Incognito is about not saving browser history locally. Totally separate. They're totally separate now, but it's not clear that they should be, and it seems pretty clear that they're not separate in the minds of users. I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where a user would want to hide their local history, but are totally cool with people who don't have physical access getting access to their activities.
    - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

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]
crazygringo 6y ago
Please read the HN guidelines on commenting. You're attacking the commenter's account, assuming bad faith, and name-calling their argument a "rant" instead of responding to the actual argument they're making. My account has been around for a long time and I agree with them. It's a well-reasoned explanation. It is correct on the purpose of incognito mode (to protect privacy locally only, e.g. from family) as well as the obvious point that if you're using Google.com while in incognito mode (very common), it's tracking you as it would anywhere. Websites aren't even supposed to know you're in incognito mode. Incognito means and has always meant "fresh browser tab with no history". It has never meant no tracking.
- malux85 6y ago
  No I'm not, I said "I love these accounts", I find them enormously entertaining
  - eagsalazar2 6y ago
    Just apologize for baselessly attacking the gp and admit your condescending "high ground" is indefensible. I've done it on HN before, it feels pretty good vs continuing to defend a rash comment.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments or flamebait to HN. Please do follow the site guidelines. You've broken them badly in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
eagsalazar2 6y ago
@malux85, except their point is pretty solid. At the very least martamorena943 made a coherent argument to support a point of view they are sharing politely. None of which you have bothered to do at all, in spite of (or I guess because of) the condescending high ground you feel entitled to.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

"Google. Chrome is a separate product" So basically: "Your honour, I can prove I didn't rob John, I had my brother do it for me!"

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
The US government does the exact same to circumvent the 4A.
- ruined 6y ago
  which is likewise reprehensible. is google going to wait until there's regular street fighting in cities across the nation before they change their surveillance behavior?

wtetzner 6y ago

I mean, Firefox sends Do Not Track when in private browsing. So clearly it's trying to do more than just hide local history. It obviously can't guarantee it, but it's trying. Chrome is not, and it seems pretty clear that it's not because that would hurt Google's bottom line. There's no conflict here between "Google shouldn't track you" and "Google should be split up".

vntok 6y ago
> I mean, Firefox sends Do Not Track when in private browsing. So clearly it's trying to do more than just hide local history. It obviously can't guarantee it, but it's trying. You got scammed by Mozilla if you think that. Please have a deep look at the various documentation on how the Internet works and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not. This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares.
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > Please have a deep look at the various documentation on how the Internet works Wow. I understand how the internet works, but thanks for the personal attack. > ... and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not. Of course, and Google controls the receiving server in this case. If they honored the Do-Not-Track header, and if Chrome sent it, users would be better off. Of course browsers can't control what all servers will do. But by sending it, servers that do honor it will. > This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares. You seem to be saying that because not all services honor the header, it should never be sent. I would say that sending it is better than not sending it, because some services do honor it. And the fact that Google doesn't honor it is telling itself. Firefox obviously does try, and DNT is not the only proof. They have put in a ton of work to make fingerprinting harder.

feoren 6y ago

Two separate issues: 1) Chrome should enable the Do Not Track header when in private browsing, as any reasonable person would expect they would. 2) Google websites and analytics should respect Do Not Track. I'm repeating what others have said but I think it's important to separate these out as different issues, because it completely nullifies everything you just said -- both are strong arguments on their own, and Chrome being a Google product is completely irrelevant to both.

crazygringo 6y ago
Except Do Not Track basically died in 2018. [1] The W3C abandoned trying to standardize it, and virtually no websites pay attention to it, because the legislative efforts behind it fell apart. It's merely a "feel good" HTTP header that does virtually nothing whatsoever in practice. I also disagree that "any reasonable person" would expect the header to be used in private browsing. Safari invented private browsing in 2005, and Chrome Incognito mode launched in 2008. Do Not Track didn't even exist as a concept back then. Incognito mode was never intended to be anti-tracking. It's only ever been intended to hide your browsing history locally, e.g. from family members. Tracking protection has an entirely different purpose. And if you want protection from tracking, you'd presumably want it in all windows, not just incognito windows, right? These are the important issues to be kept separate. Anti-tracking is something that should be consistent across all browser windows. It has nothing to do with Incognito. Incognito is about not saving browser history locally. Totally separate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > Incognito is about not saving browser history locally. Totally separate. They're totally separate now, but it's not clear that they should be, and it seems pretty clear that they're not separate in the minds of users. I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where a user would want to hide their local history, but are totally cool with people who don't have physical access getting access to their activities.
  - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]