> "users of the Internet enable ‘private browsing mode’ for the purpose of preventing others ... from finding out what the users are viewing on the Internet."

> "users of the Internet enable ‘private browsing mode’ for the purpose of preventing others ... from finding out what the users are viewing on the Internet." OK but Chrome explicitly states that it only protects against other users on the device seeing your history. It also clearly states that other entities may be able to see the history. So if you thought the purpose was "preventing others" in a general sense, that's on you. They state that Google attempts to collect information on you even when in Private Browsing. Yes, no shit, all websites will work exactly the same way via Private Browsing. All tracking techniques will work exactly the same way. To not do this would mean that a browser would have to tell websites "I'm in private browsing mode", which would be a terrible idea and is just a shittier version of Do Not Track. OK, so then they talk about "Duplicate GET Requests". > Plaintiffs allege that Google collects duplicate GET requests. > ccordingly, when Google obtains a duplicate GET request, the duplicate GET request "enables Google to learn exactly what content the user's browsing software was asking the website to display." I have no idea what they're referring to. The closest thing I can think of is Safe Browsing, maybe that new off-by-default advanced safebrowsing thing? Oh, ok, reading on they're... just talking about tracking that websites do. So if Google's JS is loaded into a webpage it apparently will send dupes of GET requests. I'd like a source but they only talk about how Facebook does this... > Second, Plaintiffs allege that Google collects the IP address of the user's connection to the Internet, which is unique to the user's device. Yes, websites can see your IP address... also websites have been explicitly called out in the private browsing page as still being able to track you. > In addition, Plaintiffs allege that, for users using Chrome without Incognito Mode, Chrome constantly transmits "a unique digital string of characters called Google's ‘X-Client-Data Header,’ such that Google uniquely identifies the device and user thereafter." Id. ¶ 95. However, Plaintiffs allege that the X-Client Data Header is not present when a Chrome user has enabled Incognito Mode. Id. ¶ 96. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege that Google is able to tell when a Chrome user has enabled Incognito Mode. Id. Yes, this is an example of Google not sending data to Google during private browsing. I dislike this header, personally. I believe that Google should remove `doubleclick` from one of the sites that it will be sent to, but I don't think it's relevant to this case. It is so far the most relevant thing though. I also believe Google should not send the tracker to "youtubekids.com" and that may actually be illegal in the EU, possibly even the US. And that's it. So, most of this is absolute nonsense, and there is one issue that I think Google should address but it's not related to the misrepresentation of Private Browsing at all.