6 ms·

I thought it was well understood that "private" mode in browsers relates to what your local machine records about where you visit. I didn't even think that a w

I thought it was well understood that "private" mode in browsers relates to what your local machine records about where you visit. I didn't even think that a web site could know you were in that mode, let alone honour it.

desas 3y ago
How representative do you think your knowledge is of the web browsing public?
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Oh I'm a lot better informed about technology than most, no doubt. I was surprised that Google settled a $5 billion lawsuit accusing it of illegally tracking users while in that mode. The only thing I can think of is that they might have misled users about the degree of privacy they could expect in that mode. Like, if they said "you won't be tracked" and then they did. Still, the technology of private mode browsing is not unique to Google and it all does the same thing: not record locally what you do.
  - jwalton 3y ago
    Just imagine a trial where Google is trying to explain to a jury of less-than-tech-literate-folk that they claim they don’t track you, and they don’t track you, but they do track you.
    - jbverschoor 3y ago
      You mean like when they asked mark zuckerberg how they make money?
- wenebego 3y ago
  I thought there was already a message along those lines when opening a new private window
bluetomcat 3y ago
It should have been called “porn mode”, to prevent any confusion among the less tech-savvy.
- dizhn 3y ago
  I bet a lot of people do look at it like that and believe it provides some VPN like protections as well.
- gjm11 3y ago
  It was informally called that from the very beginning; see e.g. https://www.theregister.com/2008/11/05/firefox_market_share_private_browsing/ https://www.theregister.com/2008/11/05/firefox_market_share_... (I think the usual term among the people developing the feature was actually "pr0n mode", but I may be wrong and/or misremembering. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not one of those people, I'm just describing what I think I remember seeing on the interwebs at the time.)
diggan 3y ago
> I thought it was well understood that "private" mode in browsers relates to what your local machine records about where you visit. I bet 99% of the people who use Chrome don't even really understand what a browser is or the difference between remote and local. > I didn't even think that a web site could know you were in that mode, let alone honour it. Well, except if you're Google and you own both the website the user visits and the browser used for the visit.
winternewt 3y ago
Incognito mode is supposed to not send your regular cookies so sites shouldn't be able to track you unless they use dubious stealthy tricks rather than the explicit well-known and documented method (i.e. a cookie). While I know that it's possible, I think it's morally despicable and I expect better from established (and ostensibly honorable) companies like Google. The fact that they now basically say "cookies or not, we're gonna track you anyway" sounds to me like another step in the downfall of Google.
- redcobra762 3y ago
  “Downfall” seems a bit dubious of a term here, Google is doing just fine…
  - carlossouza 3y ago
    Google is far from doing just fine. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was it destroyed by a single incident or individual. The downfall of empires gradually happens over years... decades... But make no mistake: the sign of the first derivative is negative.
    - redcobra762 3y ago
      Sorry but this seems like wishcasting to me; Alphabet’s stock is up 46% yoy, beating the market by 30%+. I think it’s at an all-time high, even. Any day now though, right?
    - thfuran 3y ago
      The first derivative of what exactly? Certainly not their stock price. And not their quarterly revenue either, nor even YoY growth.
- Kalium 3y ago
  > Incognito mode is supposed to not send your regular cookies so sites shouldn't be able to track you unless they use dubious stealthy tricks rather than the explicit well-known and documented method (i.e. a cookie). While I know that it's possible, I think it's morally despicable and I expect better from established (and ostensibly honorable) companies like Google. Yeah, that's what it does. Instead you get a new set of tracking cookies, because to Google and any other random website you look like a new browser they haven't seen before. By design, they have no idea that you're using "incognito mode". With that in mind, what do you think Google and others should do differently?
makeitdouble 3y ago
Many people stayed in the old mental model where a site not getting your cookies meant it probably couldn't identify you (other meta data like IP, user agent etc. where usually less unique and/or exploitable) They never revisited that assumption and might have passed it down to newer users as well.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >other meta data like IP, user agent etc. where usually less unique and/or exploitable) They never revisited that assumption They never revisited that assumption because they never had any beliefs at all regarding user agents. You're significantly overestimating how much the general public knows about this topic.
fnord77 3y ago
> I didn't even think that a web site could know you were in that mode, wanna bet? https://fingerprint.com/blog/incognito-mode-detection/ https://fingerprint.com/blog/incognito-mode-detection/
shadowgovt 3y ago
This is the fundamental disconnect in understanding of the feature. Those who don't know how the internet works could be easily confused by the term. Those who know anything about the internet's workings wouldn't even think to ask if the feature cloaked your online activity from sites you were visiting, because that's not even a thing a client can do.

desas 3y ago

How representative do you think your knowledge is of the web browsing public?

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
Oh I'm a lot better informed about technology than most, no doubt. I was surprised that Google settled a $5 billion lawsuit accusing it of illegally tracking users while in that mode. The only thing I can think of is that they might have misled users about the degree of privacy they could expect in that mode. Like, if they said "you won't be tracked" and then they did. Still, the technology of private mode browsing is not unique to Google and it all does the same thing: not record locally what you do.
- jwalton 3y ago
  Just imagine a trial where Google is trying to explain to a jury of less-than-tech-literate-folk that they claim they don’t track you, and they don’t track you, but they do track you.
  - jbverschoor 3y ago
    You mean like when they asked mark zuckerberg how they make money?
wenebego 3y ago
I thought there was already a message along those lines when opening a new private window

bluetomcat 3y ago

It should have been called “porn mode”, to prevent any confusion among the less tech-savvy.

dizhn 3y ago
I bet a lot of people do look at it like that and believe it provides some VPN like protections as well.
gjm11 3y ago
It was informally called that from the very beginning; see e.g. https://www.theregister.com/2008/11/05/firefox_market_share_private_browsing/ https://www.theregister.com/2008/11/05/firefox_market_share_... (I think the usual term among the people developing the feature was actually "pr0n mode", but I may be wrong and/or misremembering. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not one of those people, I'm just describing what I think I remember seeing on the interwebs at the time.)

diggan 3y ago

> I thought it was well understood that "private" mode in browsers relates to what your local machine records about where you visit. I bet 99% of the people who use Chrome don't even really understand what a browser is or the difference between remote and local. > I didn't even think that a web site could know you were in that mode, let alone honour it. Well, except if you're Google and you own both the website the user visits and the browser used for the visit.

winternewt 3y ago

Incognito mode is supposed to not send your regular cookies so sites shouldn't be able to track you unless they use dubious stealthy tricks rather than the explicit well-known and documented method (i.e. a cookie). While I know that it's possible, I think it's morally despicable and I expect better from established (and ostensibly honorable) companies like Google. The fact that they now basically say "cookies or not, we're gonna track you anyway" sounds to me like another step in the downfall of Google.

redcobra762 3y ago
“Downfall” seems a bit dubious of a term here, Google is doing just fine…
- carlossouza 3y ago
  Google is far from doing just fine. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was it destroyed by a single incident or individual. The downfall of empires gradually happens over years... decades... But make no mistake: the sign of the first derivative is negative.
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    Sorry but this seems like wishcasting to me; Alphabet’s stock is up 46% yoy, beating the market by 30%+. I think it’s at an all-time high, even. Any day now though, right?
  - thfuran 3y ago
    The first derivative of what exactly? Certainly not their stock price. And not their quarterly revenue either, nor even YoY growth.
Kalium 3y ago
> Incognito mode is supposed to not send your regular cookies so sites shouldn't be able to track you unless they use dubious stealthy tricks rather than the explicit well-known and documented method (i.e. a cookie). While I know that it's possible, I think it's morally despicable and I expect better from established (and ostensibly honorable) companies like Google. Yeah, that's what it does. Instead you get a new set of tracking cookies, because to Google and any other random website you look like a new browser they haven't seen before. By design, they have no idea that you're using "incognito mode". With that in mind, what do you think Google and others should do differently?

makeitdouble 3y ago

Many people stayed in the old mental model where a site not getting your cookies meant it probably couldn't identify you (other meta data like IP, user agent etc. where usually less unique and/or exploitable) They never revisited that assumption and might have passed it down to newer users as well.

thfuran 3y ago
>other meta data like IP, user agent etc. where usually less unique and/or exploitable) They never revisited that assumption They never revisited that assumption because they never had any beliefs at all regarding user agents. You're significantly overestimating how much the general public knows about this topic.

fnord77 3y ago

> I didn't even think that a web site could know you were in that mode, wanna bet? https://fingerprint.com/blog/incognito-mode-detection/ https://fingerprint.com/blog/incognito-mode-detection/

shadowgovt 3y ago

This is the fundamental disconnect in understanding of the feature. Those who don't know how the internet works could be easily confused by the term. Those who know anything about the internet's workings wouldn't even think to ask if the feature cloaked your online activity from sites you were visiting, because that's not even a thing a client can do.