9 ms·

I always felt this was obvious, what did people think incognito mode was? It literally says "Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device

I always felt this was obvious, what did people think incognito mode was? It literally says "Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity." when you open an incognito window. It doesn't claim to be a VPN or anything.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
It's also literally called incognito mode. If they want to rename it to "temporary profile" or something, I for one would be a lot happier.
- muro 4y ago
  A lot more bland/boring too
- Spivak 4y ago
  So this lawsuit is just concern trolling? Nobody is actually upset about the feature itself, some people are just taking the worst faith interpretation that nobody irl actually has and pretending to be mad about it?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Worst case scenario, it moves the Overton Window on the "reasonable person" principle.
  - JadeNB 4y ago
    > So this lawsuit is just concern trolling? Nobody is actually upset about the feature itself, some people are just taking the worst faith interpretation that nobody irl actually has and pretending to be mad about it? Websites mediate a significant part of how a significant chunk of the people in the world live a significant part of their lives. You and I know what incognito mode is and isn't, but can you seriously claim that, among a significant chunk of the population of the world, no reasonable person overestimates the privacy incognito mode offers?
    - Spivak 4y ago
      > no reasonable person The standard is would a reasonable person and the answer is absolutely not. Among non techies people assume that Incognito/Private Browsing provides less protection than is actually offered. You go into private browsing when you don’t what sites you visit to show up in your browser history, that’s it.
      - JadeNB 4y ago
        > > no reasonable person > The standard is would a reasonable person and the answer is absolutely not. Among non techies people assume that Incognito/Private Browsing provides less protection than is actually offered. You go into private browsing when you don’t what sites you visit to show up in your browser history, that’s it. You quote my referring to what a reasonable person would do, and then seem to be offering a rebuttal by saying that it's about what a reasonable person would do …? Anyway, I think we must just disagree on a reasonable person's expectations.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > You quote my referring to what a reasonable person would do, and then seem to be offering a rebuttal by saying that it's about what a reasonable person would do …? Yes. What's confusing about that? They didn't say it was wrong to talk about a reasonable person, or anything like that. But you were applying the reasonable person test incorrectly. You don't make a pile of reasonable people, and then check if any of them are confused. You look at what a single median reasonable person would think, basically.
      - yucky 4y ago
        A reasonable person would think the word incognito was being used as it's defined in every dictionary. But it's not, hence the lawsuit.
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      A reasonable person without substantial technical knowledge could have mistaken beliefs about lots of Internet concepts, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that a browser UI needs teach all of them. Should the cache settings have a big banner warning you to disable caching entirely or accept that a clever website operator can extract certain information about your browsing history?
divbzero 4y ago
Yes, the naming of “Incognito” or “Private” browsing could be improved, but the messaging in Chrome is pretty clear. In addition to: Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity. However, downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved. It also explains: Your activity might still be visible to: • Websites you visit • Your employer or school • Your internet service provider
- lamontcg 4y ago
  The whole point is that list does not mention "* Google"
  - Spivak 4y ago
    The argument would have to be that Google was using Chrome itself to track you in Incognito because they controlled the browser, otherwise they are just “websites you visit.”
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      Yes, that is in fact the subject of the lawsuit. From literally the first sentence of the article: > alleges the Silicon Valley giant misled the public about how much data it collects from users even when they're in its Chrome browser's "Incognito" private browsing mode. The accusation is that Google is leveraging Chrome to track you even in incognito mode, and it does not give any notice that it is doing so. It warns about the websites you visit, about who owns your local network, and about the ISP, it doesn't warn that Google is still actively tracking you in incognito.
      - Spivak 4y ago
        Every source about this lawsuit has said that what is meant by this is Google tracking you on Google properties. Unless they outline how the tracking is done it’s pointless.
        4y ago
just_boost_it 4y ago
I think the law would look at many questions like these by asking "what would the normal person think incognito mode was". Most people can't even write an excel formula. Not only do they not know this mode wasn't private, they don't even know enough to know understand the ways in which it wasn't private. Youre saying it doesn't claim to be a VPN, I'm saying that even if it was, mot people don't know what a VPN is, so they can't tell if they need it or if it's even a good thing.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  > Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity. However, downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved. Learn more > Your activity might still be visible to: > Websites you visit > Your employer or school > Your internet service provider It's pretty obvious that the only thing it's promising is to hide information from other users on the same device, and it goes out of its way to state that it won't protect against other tracking.
LightG 4y ago
To the HN crowd this is entirely obvious... to others, perhaps not so much. I think we're on the same ballpark as calling lane-assist Autopilot. Those who know, know. Those who don't, don't. I mean "RTFA" arose for a reason, right? Stuff literally needs to be "what it says on the tin"... and even then.
- nightfly 4y ago
  > I think we're on the same ballpark as calling lane-assist Autopilot Is aviation autopilot really any different than lane-assist?
  - LightG 4y ago
    A little. A pilot under Autopilot is at least allowed to take their hands off off the wheel/yoke/control-stick during cruise-control elements of the flight ... However, the connotations associated with "Autopilot" (to the wider public) mean it was a terrible term for its intended use on the road. Maybe this issue is so well known now (I assume, in my bubble thinking) that it's no longer an issue ... but it is a relevant example.
wutbrodo 4y ago
It also goes out if its way to mention ways in which you can still be tracked (employer, isp, etc). This salacious headline is nonsense: Google employees joked internally about facts that the product clearly provides to users.
rco8786 4y ago
Consider that the vast, vast majority of people have no idea how networks or browsers or sessions or cookies or VPNs work. I think it’s just fine and I don’t think Google misrepresented anything. But certainly there’s an enormous amount of people out there who still don’t understand the actual implications of what incognito mode means.
- Aachen 4y ago
  I might not understand how my car works, but I don't sue the manufacturer after putting it in first gear on the highway and it coming apart ("the gear was available for selecting, this should have done what I thought it did!"), or for making the radio have a button that doesn't do what I thought it did.
  - BeefWellington 4y ago
    You might, however, sue the manufacturer if they sell you an automatic parking feature that routinely crashes into other cars.
  - rco8786 4y ago
    I explicitly said "I don’t think Google misrepresented anything" so not terribly sure what your point is here.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

It's also literally called incognito mode. If they want to rename it to "temporary profile" or something, I for one would be a lot happier.

muro 4y ago
A lot more bland/boring too
Spivak 4y ago
So this lawsuit is just concern trolling? Nobody is actually upset about the feature itself, some people are just taking the worst faith interpretation that nobody irl actually has and pretending to be mad about it?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Worst case scenario, it moves the Overton Window on the "reasonable person" principle.
- JadeNB 4y ago
  > So this lawsuit is just concern trolling? Nobody is actually upset about the feature itself, some people are just taking the worst faith interpretation that nobody irl actually has and pretending to be mad about it? Websites mediate a significant part of how a significant chunk of the people in the world live a significant part of their lives. You and I know what incognito mode is and isn't, but can you seriously claim that, among a significant chunk of the population of the world, no reasonable person overestimates the privacy incognito mode offers?
  - Spivak 4y ago
    > no reasonable person The standard is would a reasonable person and the answer is absolutely not. Among non techies people assume that Incognito/Private Browsing provides less protection than is actually offered. You go into private browsing when you don’t what sites you visit to show up in your browser history, that’s it.
    - JadeNB 4y ago
      > > no reasonable person > The standard is would a reasonable person and the answer is absolutely not. Among non techies people assume that Incognito/Private Browsing provides less protection than is actually offered. You go into private browsing when you don’t what sites you visit to show up in your browser history, that’s it. You quote my referring to what a reasonable person would do, and then seem to be offering a rebuttal by saying that it's about what a reasonable person would do …? Anyway, I think we must just disagree on a reasonable person's expectations.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > You quote my referring to what a reasonable person would do, and then seem to be offering a rebuttal by saying that it's about what a reasonable person would do …? Yes. What's confusing about that? They didn't say it was wrong to talk about a reasonable person, or anything like that. But you were applying the reasonable person test incorrectly. You don't make a pile of reasonable people, and then check if any of them are confused. You look at what a single median reasonable person would think, basically.
    - yucky 4y ago
      A reasonable person would think the word incognito was being used as it's defined in every dictionary. But it's not, hence the lawsuit.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    A reasonable person without substantial technical knowledge could have mistaken beliefs about lots of Internet concepts, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that a browser UI needs teach all of them. Should the cache settings have a big banner warning you to disable caching entirely or accept that a clever website operator can extract certain information about your browsing history?

divbzero 4y ago

Yes, the naming of “Incognito” or “Private” browsing could be improved, but the messaging in Chrome is pretty clear. In addition to: Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity. However, downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved. It also explains: Your activity might still be visible to: • Websites you visit • Your employer or school • Your internet service provider

lamontcg 4y ago
The whole point is that list does not mention "* Google"
- Spivak 4y ago
  The argument would have to be that Google was using Chrome itself to track you in Incognito because they controlled the browser, otherwise they are just “websites you visit.”
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Yes, that is in fact the subject of the lawsuit. From literally the first sentence of the article: > alleges the Silicon Valley giant misled the public about how much data it collects from users even when they're in its Chrome browser's "Incognito" private browsing mode. The accusation is that Google is leveraging Chrome to track you even in incognito mode, and it does not give any notice that it is doing so. It warns about the websites you visit, about who owns your local network, and about the ISP, it doesn't warn that Google is still actively tracking you in incognito.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Every source about this lawsuit has said that what is meant by this is Google tracking you on Google properties. Unless they outline how the tracking is done it’s pointless.
      - 4y ago

just_boost_it 4y ago

I think the law would look at many questions like these by asking "what would the normal person think incognito mode was". Most people can't even write an excel formula. Not only do they not know this mode wasn't private, they don't even know enough to know understand the ways in which it wasn't private. Youre saying it doesn't claim to be a VPN, I'm saying that even if it was, mot people don't know what a VPN is, so they can't tell if they need it or if it's even a good thing.

insanitybit 4y ago
> Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity. However, downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved. Learn more > Your activity might still be visible to: > Websites you visit > Your employer or school > Your internet service provider It's pretty obvious that the only thing it's promising is to hide information from other users on the same device, and it goes out of its way to state that it won't protect against other tracking.

LightG 4y ago

To the HN crowd this is entirely obvious... to others, perhaps not so much. I think we're on the same ballpark as calling lane-assist Autopilot. Those who know, know. Those who don't, don't. I mean "RTFA" arose for a reason, right? Stuff literally needs to be "what it says on the tin"... and even then.

nightfly 4y ago
> I think we're on the same ballpark as calling lane-assist Autopilot Is aviation autopilot really any different than lane-assist?
- LightG 4y ago
  A little. A pilot under Autopilot is at least allowed to take their hands off off the wheel/yoke/control-stick during cruise-control elements of the flight ... However, the connotations associated with "Autopilot" (to the wider public) mean it was a terrible term for its intended use on the road. Maybe this issue is so well known now (I assume, in my bubble thinking) that it's no longer an issue ... but it is a relevant example.

wutbrodo 4y ago

It also goes out if its way to mention ways in which you can still be tracked (employer, isp, etc). This salacious headline is nonsense: Google employees joked internally about facts that the product clearly provides to users.

rco8786 4y ago

Consider that the vast, vast majority of people have no idea how networks or browsers or sessions or cookies or VPNs work. I think it’s just fine and I don’t think Google misrepresented anything. But certainly there’s an enormous amount of people out there who still don’t understand the actual implications of what incognito mode means.

Aachen 4y ago
I might not understand how my car works, but I don't sue the manufacturer after putting it in first gear on the highway and it coming apart ("the gear was available for selecting, this should have done what I thought it did!"), or for making the radio have a button that doesn't do what I thought it did.
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  You might, however, sue the manufacturer if they sell you an automatic parking feature that routinely crashes into other cars.
- rco8786 4y ago
  I explicitly said "I don’t think Google misrepresented anything" so not terribly sure what your point is here.