389
submitted 7 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bus_factor@lemmy.world 184 points 7 months ago

Pretty sure it's always been upfront with that it still tracks you? I always thought of it as a "don't store history and cookies locally" thing and nothing more. Maybe I read that disclaimer with more cynicism than most?

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 66 points 7 months ago

Yeah, it has always been the “don’t log my porn activity” mode. I don’t understand how so many people misinterpret it as some kind of privacy protection mode.

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 34 points 7 months ago

Yeah, it has always been the “don’t log my porn activity” mode. I don’t understand how so many people misinterpret it as some kind of privacy protection mode.

Well, also the “log into your accounts on someone else’s machine without storing the account in the browser” mode. Or the “shop for your partner’s gifts without leaving a trail” mode. But yeah, primarily for porn.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 21 points 7 months ago

Yeah I feel the same way.

I admit that I know quite a bit about computers and such but I thought everyone knew private mode isn't intended to stop any tracking.

Pretty sure some browsers by default enable extra tracking protections when in private mode but that's just an extra feature.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 16 points 7 months ago

Yeah, most websites do fingerprinting. I doubt Firefox is immune to it either. In fact, it probably makes it worse since there's so few people using it.

https://amiunique.org/fingerprint shows me as being unique in both browsers, and that's without even taking into account IP address which narrows you down to people on your connection anyway. Only a VPN will hide that.

They don't need cookies to track your visits. Yet apparently they still need to ask if you want to share data with 2184 trusted data partners every time you visit without them, so maybe they can pack that the fuck in.

[-] Ironfacebuster@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

I visited that site and rejected the cookies

I am now untraceable on the Internet

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

it's always been upfront

The language it uses/used to use was rather ambiguous, especially for less tech savvy people.

Perhaps it wasn't false, but it definitely wasn't upfront.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 11 points 7 months ago

What about it is ambiguous or not written for less tech savvy people?

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

You do know they updated it soon after this became a major thing, right?

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

That linked picture is at least from 2017 from a quick research. What they clarify now in the latest update is that Google is not exempt from tracking your activity.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 6 points 7 months ago

I don't know that actually. I recall similar wording going back to when Incognito tabs were launched.

Got a source on that?

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Google quietly updates Chrome’s incognito warning in wake of tracking lawsuit

[...]

Here’s the updated text (emphasis added):

“Others who use this device won’t see your activity, so you can browse more privately. This won’t change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google. Downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/16/24039883/google-incognito-mode-tracking-lawsuit-notice-change

The text in that article is different from your screenshot, I don't know what's up with that. Perhaps it's regional.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 7 points 7 months ago

I believe the one I posted is older, based on the logo.

So looks like they've updated multiple times, each more reader-friendly than the last...

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

They might have changed the wording, but it's been insanely clear for many years, and it never at any point implied it changed anything about what websites did.

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

You and I may have known, but

it's been insanely clear for many years

If it had been clear it wouldn't have become an issue.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

It isn't an issue. The exact wording might have changed, but the content has been identical for years and years. It included "sites and others who can see your traffic can do whatever the hell they want" the whole time, in entirely unambiguous idiot proof language.

This is an imaginary horseshit lawsuit. It was not possible to read the very obvious text and be misled about what incognito mode did or didn't do at any point, and it was automatically displayed in every tab. There was never at any point any possible room for confusion.

[-] scrappydoo@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

“Always”? Nope.

“If you’re concerned, for whatever reason, you do not wish to be tracked by federal and state authorities, my strong recommendation is to use [Google Chrome’s] incognito mode.”

  • Eric Schmidt, 2014

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/01/05/super-cookies-can-track-you-over-google-incognito/

this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
389 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

59598 readers
3933 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS