12 ms·

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 privat

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.
      - lamontcg 4y ago
        https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc
        Spivak 4y ago
        > through means that include Google Analytics, Google ‘fingerprinting’ techniques, concurrent Google applications and processes on a consumer's device, and Google's Ad Manager… So not using Chrome. They’re arguing that Google is collecting the usual web tracking and that other Google apps a user might have collect user data.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      Can you explain how Google tracks users in incognito mode outside of the websites they visit? If there's no client-side Chrome telemetry in incognito mode, why should Google be special-cased when all ad networks can do the same thing that Chrome caveats explicitly?
      - lamontcg 4y ago
        > 2. Google's Alleged Collection of Plaintiffs’ Data > Plaintiffs allege that Google collects data from them while they are in private browsing mode "through means that include Google Analytics, Google ‘fingerprinting’ techniques, concurrent Google applications and processes on a consumer's device, and Google's Ad Manager." Id. ¶ 8. According to Plaintiffs, "[m]ore than 70% of all online publishers (websites) use one or more of these Google services." > Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that, whenever a user, including a user in private browsing mode, visits a website that is running Google Analytics or Google Ad Manager, "Google's software scripts on the website surreptitiously direct the user's browser to send a secret, separate message to Google's servers in California." Id. ¶ 63. This message includes six elements, each of which is discussed below. [...followed by a lot of detail on what gets tracked...] https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc So there is client-side telemetry which completely de-anonymizes and geolocates you and Google tracks you in incognito mode everywhere that Google Analytics is deployed (~70% of the web). If you use incognito mode and visit porn sites that use Google Analytics, then Google has your complete de-anonymized porn surfing history in their databases. This is not what people are led to believe is happening by the incognito warning message.
        ryeights 4y ago
        > So there is client-side telemetry which completely de-anonymizes and geolocates you This is not supported by the quote you posted.
        lamontcg 4y ago
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Why the hell would anyone assume that the software vendor who made the browser had no visibility into the use of the browser?
  - JadeNB 4y ago
    > Why the hell would anyone assume that the software vendor who made the browser had no visibility into the use of the browser? Why the hell wouldn't anyone? I mean, expectations of privacy have eroded, but "you used this company's product, so you must be giving them permission to see everything you do with it" is an argument that, despite many companies' attempts to push it as just common sense, doesn't and shouldn't fly.
    - moeris 4y ago
      Because they accepted terms of service that explicitly stated what information can be collected.
      - BeefWellington 4y ago
        That's actually one of the points of the lawsuit: the TOS is unclear and improperly vague.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      It really is the status quo now. It's in fact surprising when online software doesn't collect telemetry. It's increasingly surprising when offline software on an Internet-connected device doesn't collect telemetry. VSCode collects telemetry these days.
      - JadeNB 4y ago
        > It really is the status quo now. It's in fact surprising when online software doesn't collect telemetry. It's increasingly surprising when offline software on an Internet-connected device doesn't collect telemetry. I completely agree that it is the status quo, but it shouldn't be. It's unreasonably for people to be surprised by violations of privacy, but I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to expect respect for their privacy.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  It shouldn't have to. There's no implication that the list in the Incognito start page is comprehensive. Nor is there anything special about Google in this context -- the fact that they created Chrome doesn't give them any more access to users' data in Incognito mode than any other web analytics firm.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    The lawsuit alleges that they have a lot more access that any other web analytics firm and that they deanonymize and geolocate you on any web property that uses Google Analytics which enables them to fully track you. https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc
    - jsnell 4y ago
      That's a very long document. Can you point to the exact place where they allege that they have "a lot more access that any other web analytics firm"? I tried searching for "access", "geolocat" and "deanonym" and none of the hits describe anything like what you claim is alleged.
    - phailhaus 4y ago
      So can Facebook. Should they add that disclaimer on the incognito page too? If you're going to argue that they should call out Google analytics specifically, then you're saying that they should have a comprehensive list of every tracking company out there. But why? They've already made it clear that websites can still track you in Incognito.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  "* Google" is part of "websites you visit" since the tracking asserted here happens only to the extent that you visit Google websites or when websites track you using Google tools.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    I'd argue (and this is the point of the lawsuit) that Google being a third party spying on you on 70% of the websites that use Google Analytics is not being adequately disclosed by the warning message in Incognito mode. There is no "oh by the way we de-anonymize and geolocate you and we have your entire porn surfing history in our servers, cheers mate" notice there. The vast majority of internet users would expect that their IP would naturally leak to the porn site they visit, and that seems to be what the warning is about. It doesn't suggest at all to the average user that Google is watching all your activity across all the porn sites you visit--that doesn't become an obvious risk without a lot of specialized knowledge (which most of the readers here probably know, but which 99% of the rest of the world doesn't, which makes that interpretation highly deceptive to the average person).
    - geofft 4y ago
      Not that I disagree with you about whether the average person realizes it, but it's not just a risk because Google has JavaScript trackers on your porn site. Google could just make a deal with the porn site to access their server logs and correlate data that way. The fact that you disclose information to the sites you visit means they may, in turn, disclose information to whomever else. As a totally non-web example of this, as of 2017, "Google’s third-party partnerships ... capture approximately 70% of credit and debit card transactions in the United States." https://adwords.googleblog.com/2017/05/powering-ads-and-analytics-innovations.html https://adwords.googleblog.com/2017/05/powering-ads-and-anal... When you buy something with MasterCard, in person, with a magstripe or even an old-school carbon-copy imprinter, MasterCard can go give that data to Google. I think the incognito warning could say "Websites you visit, and anyone those sites share data with" to draw attention to this, but I'm not sure if that's quite enough. I'm leaning towards the argument from this article that "incognito" itself is simply a poor name.
- bartimus 4y ago
  But isn't that the same as opening a different browser (Firefox)? Your activity can still be tracked. It's not something that can be prevented within the scope of a private browsing feature.

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.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc
      - Spivak 4y ago
        > through means that include Google Analytics, Google ‘fingerprinting’ techniques, concurrent Google applications and processes on a consumer's device, and Google's Ad Manager… So not using Chrome. They’re arguing that Google is collecting the usual web tracking and that other Google apps a user might have collect user data.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Can you explain how Google tracks users in incognito mode outside of the websites they visit? If there's no client-side Chrome telemetry in incognito mode, why should Google be special-cased when all ad networks can do the same thing that Chrome caveats explicitly?
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      > 2. Google's Alleged Collection of Plaintiffs’ Data > Plaintiffs allege that Google collects data from them while they are in private browsing mode "through means that include Google Analytics, Google ‘fingerprinting’ techniques, concurrent Google applications and processes on a consumer's device, and Google's Ad Manager." Id. ¶ 8. According to Plaintiffs, "[m]ore than 70% of all online publishers (websites) use one or more of these Google services." > Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that, whenever a user, including a user in private browsing mode, visits a website that is running Google Analytics or Google Ad Manager, "Google's software scripts on the website surreptitiously direct the user's browser to send a secret, separate message to Google's servers in California." Id. ¶ 63. This message includes six elements, each of which is discussed below. [...followed by a lot of detail on what gets tracked...] https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc So there is client-side telemetry which completely de-anonymizes and geolocates you and Google tracks you in incognito mode everywhere that Google Analytics is deployed (~70% of the web). If you use incognito mode and visit porn sites that use Google Analytics, then Google has your complete de-anonymized porn surfing history in their databases. This is not what people are led to believe is happening by the incognito warning message.
      - ryeights 4y ago
        > So there is client-side telemetry which completely de-anonymizes and geolocates you This is not supported by the quote you posted.
        lamontcg 4y ago
shadowgovt 4y ago
Why the hell would anyone assume that the software vendor who made the browser had no visibility into the use of the browser?
- JadeNB 4y ago
  > Why the hell would anyone assume that the software vendor who made the browser had no visibility into the use of the browser? Why the hell wouldn't anyone? I mean, expectations of privacy have eroded, but "you used this company's product, so you must be giving them permission to see everything you do with it" is an argument that, despite many companies' attempts to push it as just common sense, doesn't and shouldn't fly.
  - moeris 4y ago
    Because they accepted terms of service that explicitly stated what information can be collected.
    - BeefWellington 4y ago
      That's actually one of the points of the lawsuit: the TOS is unclear and improperly vague.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    It really is the status quo now. It's in fact surprising when online software doesn't collect telemetry. It's increasingly surprising when offline software on an Internet-connected device doesn't collect telemetry. VSCode collects telemetry these days.
    - JadeNB 4y ago
      > It really is the status quo now. It's in fact surprising when online software doesn't collect telemetry. It's increasingly surprising when offline software on an Internet-connected device doesn't collect telemetry. I completely agree that it is the status quo, but it shouldn't be. It's unreasonably for people to be surprised by violations of privacy, but I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to expect respect for their privacy.
duskwuff 4y ago
It shouldn't have to. There's no implication that the list in the Incognito start page is comprehensive. Nor is there anything special about Google in this context -- the fact that they created Chrome doesn't give them any more access to users' data in Incognito mode than any other web analytics firm.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  The lawsuit alleges that they have a lot more access that any other web analytics firm and that they deanonymize and geolocate you on any web property that uses Google Analytics which enables them to fully track you. https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc https://casetext.com/case/brown-v-google-llc
  - jsnell 4y ago
    That's a very long document. Can you point to the exact place where they allege that they have "a lot more access that any other web analytics firm"? I tried searching for "access", "geolocat" and "deanonym" and none of the hits describe anything like what you claim is alleged.
  - phailhaus 4y ago
    So can Facebook. Should they add that disclaimer on the incognito page too? If you're going to argue that they should call out Google analytics specifically, then you're saying that they should have a comprehensive list of every tracking company out there. But why? They've already made it clear that websites can still track you in Incognito.
PeterisP 4y ago
"* Google" is part of "websites you visit" since the tracking asserted here happens only to the extent that you visit Google websites or when websites track you using Google tools.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  I'd argue (and this is the point of the lawsuit) that Google being a third party spying on you on 70% of the websites that use Google Analytics is not being adequately disclosed by the warning message in Incognito mode. There is no "oh by the way we de-anonymize and geolocate you and we have your entire porn surfing history in our servers, cheers mate" notice there. The vast majority of internet users would expect that their IP would naturally leak to the porn site they visit, and that seems to be what the warning is about. It doesn't suggest at all to the average user that Google is watching all your activity across all the porn sites you visit--that doesn't become an obvious risk without a lot of specialized knowledge (which most of the readers here probably know, but which 99% of the rest of the world doesn't, which makes that interpretation highly deceptive to the average person).
  - geofft 4y ago
    Not that I disagree with you about whether the average person realizes it, but it's not just a risk because Google has JavaScript trackers on your porn site. Google could just make a deal with the porn site to access their server logs and correlate data that way. The fact that you disclose information to the sites you visit means they may, in turn, disclose information to whomever else. As a totally non-web example of this, as of 2017, "Google’s third-party partnerships ... capture approximately 70% of credit and debit card transactions in the United States." https://adwords.googleblog.com/2017/05/powering-ads-and-analytics-innovations.html https://adwords.googleblog.com/2017/05/powering-ads-and-anal... When you buy something with MasterCard, in person, with a magstripe or even an old-school carbon-copy imprinter, MasterCard can go give that data to Google. I think the incognito warning could say "Websites you visit, and anyone those sites share data with" to draw attention to this, but I'm not sure if that's quite enough. I'm leaning towards the argument from this article that "incognito" itself is simply a poor name.
bartimus 4y ago
But isn't that the same as opening a different browser (Firefox)? Your activity can still be tracked. It's not something that can be prevented within the scope of a private browsing feature.