3 ms·

If we're buying in that "by mistake" nonsense we're being so incredibly naive. How can someone even programatically inject referral links in your page "by mista

If we're buying in that "by mistake" nonsense we're being so incredibly naive. How can someone even programatically inject referral links in your page "by mistake"? I've seen too many instances like Google Chrome still tracking you in incognito where companies just come back with they were doing it "by mistake" to believe any of them were really saying the truth.

Arainach 4y ago
>Google Chrome still tracking you in incognito When was this?
- darig 4y ago
  [dead]
- shakna 4y ago
  The lawsuit [0][1] was filed in 2020. [0] https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv03664/360374 https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-lawsuit-idUSKBN23933H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-l...
  - Arainach 4y ago
    That's not what the lawsuit says at all. The lawsuit doesn't say Chrome is doing anything. It's claiming that websites, including those owned by Google, are tracking things in incognito sessions. This is because there is no flag that says "this is an incognito session" sent to the site, and the existence of any such flag would be a bug. There's a constant arms race between sites trying to detect incognito and browsers closing the holes.
    - blacksmith_tb 4y ago
      Hmm, not sure it's too likely that sites can differentiate between first time visitors and Incognito / Private browsing, unless they tested for behavior that first time visitors shouldn't be able to do, like signing in (even then that could be a different device, or they might have cleared cookies). In general I would expect most sites to be less interested in identifying Incognito than ad blockers?
      - Arainach 4y ago
        There are entire businesses built around this: https://fingerprint.com/blog/incognito-mode-detection/ https://fingerprint.com/blog/incognito-mode-detection/ Plenty of sites try to do this. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/18/18229124/chrome-incognito-mode-site-blocking-76 https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/18/18229124/chrome-incognito...
- ergonaught 4y ago
  https://www.computerworld.com/article/3678190/google-execs-knew-incognito-mode-failed-to-protect-privacy-suit-claims.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3678190/google-execs-k... And such
selcuka 4y ago
They didn't say it was made "by mistake". They said that it was a mistake to add affiliate links, and they are disabling them. In any case, it doesn't look like it was a privacy issue, they just wanted the affiliate revenue from Binance. Disclaimer: I am not a Brave user, or in any way affiliated with them.
drekipus 4y ago
> How can someone even programatically inject referral links in your page that is not what happened. on my google keyboard, "fuck" autocompletes to "duck" but I'm not claiming any grand conspiracy unless it was a duckduckgo keyboard.
soundnote 4y ago
Referral links themselves were not the mistake. What they intended: User types a full url: binance.us -> Brave doesn't suggest shit, user goes to whatever they wrote. User types a partial url/keyword: binance -> Brave shows a suggestion from a local list of partners that match, with the suggested url being basically binance.us/brave. Not user tracking, just IDing that the click came from a campaign. What the mistake was: The user wrote binance.us -> Brave suggested the partnered link when it shouldn't have. That is literally it. And it got fixed within one day.

Arainach 4y ago

>Google Chrome still tracking you in incognito When was this?

darig 4y ago
[dead]
shakna 4y ago
The lawsuit [0][1] was filed in 2020. [0] https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv03664/360374 https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2020cv... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-lawsuit-idUSKBN23933H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-privacy-l...
- Arainach 4y ago
  That's not what the lawsuit says at all. The lawsuit doesn't say Chrome is doing anything. It's claiming that websites, including those owned by Google, are tracking things in incognito sessions. This is because there is no flag that says "this is an incognito session" sent to the site, and the existence of any such flag would be a bug. There's a constant arms race between sites trying to detect incognito and browsers closing the holes.
  - blacksmith_tb 4y ago
    Hmm, not sure it's too likely that sites can differentiate between first time visitors and Incognito / Private browsing, unless they tested for behavior that first time visitors shouldn't be able to do, like signing in (even then that could be a different device, or they might have cleared cookies). In general I would expect most sites to be less interested in identifying Incognito than ad blockers?
    - Arainach 4y ago
      There are entire businesses built around this: https://fingerprint.com/blog/incognito-mode-detection/ https://fingerprint.com/blog/incognito-mode-detection/ Plenty of sites try to do this. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/18/18229124/chrome-incognito-mode-site-blocking-76 https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/18/18229124/chrome-incognito...
ergonaught 4y ago
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3678190/google-execs-knew-incognito-mode-failed-to-protect-privacy-suit-claims.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3678190/google-execs-k... And such

selcuka 4y ago

They didn't say it was made "by mistake". They said that it was a mistake to add affiliate links, and they are disabling them. In any case, it doesn't look like it was a privacy issue, they just wanted the affiliate revenue from Binance. Disclaimer: I am not a Brave user, or in any way affiliated with them.

drekipus 4y ago

> How can someone even programatically inject referral links in your page that is not what happened. on my google keyboard, "fuck" autocompletes to "duck" but I'm not claiming any grand conspiracy unless it was a duckduckgo keyboard.

soundnote 4y ago

Referral links themselves were not the mistake. What they intended: User types a full url: binance.us -> Brave doesn't suggest shit, user goes to whatever they wrote. User types a partial url/keyword: binance -> Brave shows a suggestion from a local list of partners that match, with the suggested url being basically binance.us/brave. Not user tracking, just IDing that the click came from a campaign. What the mistake was: The user wrote binance.us -> Brave suggested the partnered link when it shouldn't have. That is literally it. And it got fixed within one day.