4 ms·

> I buy that some consumers don't understand the separation between Chrome the browser and Google the website. But if ignorance is allowed... When you "log int

> I buy that some consumers don't understand the separation between Chrome the browser and Google the website. But if ignorance is allowed... When you "log into Chrome" with a Google account, is it really ignorant to assume that the scope of the settings in Chrome is the same scope as the Google account? I mean it's wrong, but it's wrong because Google is deliberately blurring distinctions and undermining common-sense assumptions.

granzymes 5y ago
As discussed 11 months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552967), yes it is user ignorance. " You've gone incognito Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity. However, downloads and bookmarks will be saved. Learn more... 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 "
granzymes 5y ago
As discussed 11 months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552967), yes it is user ignorance. As asdfasgasdgasdg says, that's not a pejorative, it's just a fact. Incognito is very clear about what it is doing: " You've gone incognito Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity. However, downloads and bookmarks will be saved. Learn more... 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 "
- the_local_host 5y ago
  The subject matter here isn't "Websites you visit" in general, it's specifically Google, and whether the settings in Chrome (where users authenticate using Google accounts) should apply across their services.
  - granzymes 5y ago
    Feel free to read the complaint, page 22 (Plaintiff-specific factual allegations). This is about Incognito not preventing websites from tracking you. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.360374/gov.uscourts.cand.360374.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      Worth noting that the lawsuit is also specifically about how Google uses x-client-data. Google claims it doesn't use this header to track users. It seems like the factuality of this claim will be easily determined during discovery. If Google doesn't use x-client-data to track users, the lawsuit as currently formulated is going nowhere.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Paragraphs 77, 78, 81, 82, and 83 specify Google tracking.
- alpaca128 5y ago
  > Incognito is very clear about what it is doing I don't think so. That label was very intentionally chosen to give off a first impression different from reality, to make it more likely the user intuitively makes incorrect assumptions. You can call it ignorance, I call it a comprehensive dark pattern. Google aimed to give users the wrong impression. And your cited list is neat but many users have no idea Google, Facebook etc. track users across different websites, and for those it's absolutely not clear what actually happens.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  'Incognito' implies anonymity. The clear suggestion is that people who already know who you are (your ISP, or your employer/school who is equivalently knowledgeable) can see your browsing, but that websites will see you as an anonymous person unless you choose to identify yourself to them. There's a reason Google don't mention their own collection/inferential behavior here; people might abandon Chrome is it said 'BTW if we can work out who you are at the server end we'll still be tracking that.' It may boil down to determinations of what 'a reasonable person' believes, that is someone who is amenable to reasoned argument, and of ordinary knowledge. I think a lot of people here are projecting their technical knowledge into this page and saying 'if you don't consider all these background factors then that's your problem.' It seems like to me that a court will lean towards taking the above at face value absent specific knowledge to the contrary, eg choosing to log into an online service vs not. A simple example would be doing some Super Secret Stuff in one incognito window and opening up another tab where you go to Youtube (also incognito), don't log in, but play your three favorite and quite unusual songs for background music. Is it OK for Youtube to silently infer that it's you based on that highly individual selection and allow Google to track your Super Secret activity with 99.9% confidence?
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
If you believe an incorrect thing, you are both wrong in your belief and ignorant of the correct belief. It's not a pejorative to say a user has ignorance of a particular fact. It's just a statement about the condition of the user's understanding of reality. (You can also call someone ignorant as an insult, but that's usually not in the context of particular facts. "You are ignorant," is an insult. "That person is ignorant of the situation," is not an insult.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cpeterso 5y ago
I understand that the Chrome UI has blurred the line between “logging into Chrome” and “logging into Google”. But if you log into Chrome and then open an Incognito window, are you still logged into your Google account for Google sites loaded in the Incognito window?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  > But if you log into Chrome and then open an Incognito window, are you still logged into your Google account for Google sites loaded in the Incognito window? No, you are not.

granzymes 5y ago

As discussed 11 months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552967), yes it is user ignorance. " You've gone incognito Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity. However, downloads and bookmarks will be saved. Learn more... 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 "

granzymes 5y ago

As discussed 11 months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552967), yes it is user ignorance. As asdfasgasdgasdg says, that's not a pejorative, it's just a fact. Incognito is very clear about what it is doing: " You've gone incognito Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity. However, downloads and bookmarks will be saved. Learn more... 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 "

the_local_host 5y ago
The subject matter here isn't "Websites you visit" in general, it's specifically Google, and whether the settings in Chrome (where users authenticate using Google accounts) should apply across their services.
- granzymes 5y ago
  Feel free to read the complaint, page 22 (Plaintiff-specific factual allegations). This is about Incognito not preventing websites from tracking you. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.360374/gov.uscourts.cand.360374.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Worth noting that the lawsuit is also specifically about how Google uses x-client-data. Google claims it doesn't use this header to track users. It seems like the factuality of this claim will be easily determined during discovery. If Google doesn't use x-client-data to track users, the lawsuit as currently formulated is going nowhere.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Paragraphs 77, 78, 81, 82, and 83 specify Google tracking.
alpaca128 5y ago
> Incognito is very clear about what it is doing I don't think so. That label was very intentionally chosen to give off a first impression different from reality, to make it more likely the user intuitively makes incorrect assumptions. You can call it ignorance, I call it a comprehensive dark pattern. Google aimed to give users the wrong impression. And your cited list is neat but many users have no idea Google, Facebook etc. track users across different websites, and for those it's absolutely not clear what actually happens.
anigbrowl 5y ago
'Incognito' implies anonymity. The clear suggestion is that people who already know who you are (your ISP, or your employer/school who is equivalently knowledgeable) can see your browsing, but that websites will see you as an anonymous person unless you choose to identify yourself to them. There's a reason Google don't mention their own collection/inferential behavior here; people might abandon Chrome is it said 'BTW if we can work out who you are at the server end we'll still be tracking that.' It may boil down to determinations of what 'a reasonable person' believes, that is someone who is amenable to reasoned argument, and of ordinary knowledge. I think a lot of people here are projecting their technical knowledge into this page and saying 'if you don't consider all these background factors then that's your problem.' It seems like to me that a court will lean towards taking the above at face value absent specific knowledge to the contrary, eg choosing to log into an online service vs not. A simple example would be doing some Super Secret Stuff in one incognito window and opening up another tab where you go to Youtube (also incognito), don't log in, but play your three favorite and quite unusual songs for background music. Is it OK for Youtube to silently infer that it's you based on that highly individual selection and allow Google to track your Super Secret activity with 99.9% confidence?

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

If you believe an incorrect thing, you are both wrong in your belief and ignorant of the correct belief. It's not a pejorative to say a user has ignorance of a particular fact. It's just a statement about the condition of the user's understanding of reality. (You can also call someone ignorant as an insult, but that's usually not in the context of particular facts. "You are ignorant," is an insult. "That person is ignorant of the situation," is not an insult.)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cpeterso 5y ago

I understand that the Chrome UI has blurred the line between “logging into Chrome” and “logging into Google”. But if you log into Chrome and then open an Incognito window, are you still logged into your Google account for Google sites loaded in the Incognito window?

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> But if you log into Chrome and then open an Incognito window, are you still logged into your Google account for Google sites loaded in the Incognito window? No, you are not.