4 ms·

It is reasonable to assume that you won't be tracked by Google when you're incognito in Google's browser. Edit: Here's some empirical evidence: https://www.cnb

• dylan604 5y ago
  No, it is not. They clearly tell you this when you switch to Icognito mode.
  • rastafang 5y ago
    That Google is tracking everything you do on the browser is the problem here, not incognito.
  • howinteresting 5y ago
    I as a technical user know that the assumption is wrong, and that to achieve the desired properties one needs something like the Tor Browser. But it is still reasonable to make that assumption. Chrome benefits from its association with Google. This means that Google should also deal with the consequences of that association.
    • SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      What specifically do you argue Google should have done here? I can’t think of a name that could describe the feature without potentially misleading people who don’t understand it; the fundamental problem is that people don’t realize there’s a difference between “privacy from other people on my computer” and “privacy from other sites on the Internet”. Should they have just refused to build a privacy mode at all because they can’t provide all forms of privacy?
      • bryan0 5y ago
        > What specifically do you argue Google should have done here? Google should stop tracking users when they’re in incognito mode.
        • Closi 5y ago
          Yeah, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The idea you can be in Google Browsers private browsing mode that says Google Browser won’t track you but in reality Google will still track you in that mode given the chance is a huge piece of slight of hand for the average users.
        • chrononaut 5y ago
          > Google should stop tracking users when they’re in incognito mode. Google (the Chrome development team) should not track users when they're in incognito mode if they even do. However, Google (the company and its services) should not care whether a user is using incognito mode or not; Otherwise you're asking for the implementation of additional functionality beyond what incognito mode is intended to provide (ala DNT, etc), and making it specific to only Google, and not other websites, would be a strange position.
          • howinteresting 5y ago
            In that case, Chrome should lose all Google branding. I'm sick of megacorps reaping all the benefits of branding but none of the downsides.
          • bryan0 5y ago
            It’s crazy how we’ve gotten to the point where a clear and ethical implementation of privacy features is now seen as “strange”
            • Jensson 5y ago
              Incognito mode is a standard browser feature, there is no reason to believe that Googles browser would work differently than others browsers. Safari calls it "Private Browsing", should that also be illegal since Apple still tracks you on websites you visit even if you have it on? It is insane to assume that every company that has a browser with this feature would sync it with all their website to disable tracking when it is on. And often times that wouldn't even be what you want. Often you go incognito to log into another account because it creates a fresh browser instance. Doing that would be impossible if it didn't enable any form of tracking, logging in requires them to track you. Making a sensible way where incognito somehow prevented all tracking while still being functional isn't possible.
  • josefx 5y ago
    I just love modern day marketing: * unlimited: not actually unlimited * Full self driving: not actually fully self driving * incognito: not even trying to be incognito As long as you have a paragraph explaining it you could bottle piss and sell it as fresh spring water.
    • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      But its the everydays Joe's fault for not knowing exactly how and when proffesionals with a phD and decades experience are misleading him
    • MattGaiser 5y ago
      Complex things are rarely accurately defined in a word or two.
      • rastafang 5y ago
        But it would have been fairly easy to not use words with opposite meaning of what you mean?
      • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        When I ask my laweyer how to avoid jail, he also makes sure to mislead me as much as possible with various gotchas that 'everyone should know'
    • rastafang 5y ago
      1984 has become reality (most predictions in the book), we need a new goal. https://www.planetebook.com/1984/ https://www.planetebook.com/1984/
    • dylan604 5y ago
      I really don't understand the confusion. Incognito prevents the browser from remembering the things you do locally to the browser itself. The browser, any browser, cannot control what the server does. The browser cannot block whatever javascript you have allowed it to run. All it can do is block javascript. You log into a server while in Incognito doesn't mean the server won't know you logged in (wtf?). Icognito basically means your SO won't see your browser history, and that's about it.
• jgwil2 5y ago
  Some people with non-technical backgrounds probably did make this assumption. Whether it's reasonable is, I suppose, debatable.
• samstave 5y ago
  AFAIK; incognito ONLY prevents whatever you type in the URL bar from hitting your local browsing history. Its used to hide visits to sites from your machine from others who actually might look at your machine. This is all.
• bryan0 5y ago
  Absurd how this is getting downvoted when the obvious assumption by non-technical users is that if “Chrome” isn’t tracking you then “Google” isn’t tracking either. And the the simple fact is that Google shouldn’t track you if you’re using incognito mode on its browser.
  • akersten 5y ago
    > And the the simple fact is that Google shouldn’t track you if you’re using incognito mode on its browser. What is absurd is seeking a remedy where Google is compelled to further couple their ecosystem so that now only Chrome users are exempt from server-side tracking, but Firefox Private Browsing or Edge InPrivate continue to be server-side tracked, because these plaintiffs suddenly understand how private browsing works when the browser doesn't say "Google Chrome" on it. It's a cash grab. If they wanted a remedy where a user truly had control over their privacy and could turn off server-side tracking at the flick of a client-side switch, they'd lobby for privacy-positive legislation. They just see easy money here because they think they can confuse the courts into a muddled make-believe interpretation of how webservers and user agents work.
• chrononaut 5y ago
  > It is reasonable to assume that you won't be tracked by Google when you're incognito in Google's browser. Given the existing functionality of incognito mode, what would you call its set of features that it provides? Is it a naming / branding issue? I believe it should be possible to provide these set of features (or browser operating mode) without going to the extent of not being tracked by Google (the company and its services), even though the ability to do the latter seamlessly would be beneficial.
  • howinteresting 5y ago
    I think any of the following would be acceptable: * Chrome sends a signal to google.com around not tracking in incognito mode (Chrome already does all sorts of magic on Google sites, this would be a small addition) * Incognito mode has a clear warning that Google specifically will keep tracking you * Chrome loses all Google branding
    • hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
      All of those are horrible ideas: 1. So you're saying only Google is the publisher that specifically gets notified when you use incognito mode. That actually would be a real, concerning privacy violation in my opinion. 2. But the whole point is that it is not just Google who "specifically keeps tracking you". It's any server software out there that keeps logs. The warning Incognito Mode has now is much more correct and accurate that some sort of "Google specific" one would be. 3. That's just dumb. It's a Google product, why shouldn't it have Google branding.