545
Google updates Chrome's Incognito Mode disclaimer to admit it is tracking users (www.ghacks.net)
submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] heyoni@lemm.ee 71 points 10 months ago

I don’t use chrome but this is a whole lot of nothing. It’s basically saying if you save a file or an article to your reading list it’ll still be there…and that remote websites will still stuff your face with cookies and try to track you…but it’s not like they’re giving you a special chrome cookie to link your private and non private browsing. Server side tracking never goes away, not even with Firefox.

Anyways, who cares. Delete chrome and start using Firefox. But again, make sure you delete the files you download in incognito or they’ll still be there. And your ISP can still see which domains you’re going to if you use them as your DNS.

[-] cttttt@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

And your ISP can still see which domains you’re going to if you use them as your DNS.

Just so you know, because TLS SNI is not encrypted and not yet universally obfuscated (adoption of this is pretty slow and one of the largest CDN providers had to pause their rollout last I checked), not-even-barely-deep packet inspection can be used to track the sites you visit regardless of your DNS provider or wherever resolution is encrypted. Just do a packet dump and see.

Also, if a website isn't fronted by one of the most popular CDN providers in existence, it can be possible to infer the sites you're visiting based on their server IP addresses.

Although this just shifts where tracking can occur, a VPN is the only reliable way to maybe prevent your ISP from tracking the sites you visit, if this is your desire.

[-] heyoni@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Yep, I’m aware. It’s how that one guy hacked his airplanes wireless, by setting up a certificate with his domain and the airlines and then using that domain + port 443 as an ssh or vpn tunnel.

So TLS rollout is slow because the websites can still be seen with packet inspection? We’re talking about TLS 1.4 right?

[-] cttttt@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I'm not sure if it's part of a TLS standard yet but I was talking about encrypted SNI (ECH, formerly called ESNI).

Today, early on in a TLS connection, the client actually tells the server, in plain text, the domain name it's intending to communicate with. The server then presents a response that only the owner of that domain can produce, then keys are exchanged and the connection progresses, encrypted. This was required to allow a single server to serve traffic on multiple domains. Before this, a server on an IP:Port combo could only serve traffic on a single domain.

But because of this, a man in the middle can just read the ClientHello and learn the domain you're intending to connect to. They can't intercept any encapsulated data (e.g. at the HTTP level, in the case of web traffic) but they can learn the domains you're accessing.

ECH promises to make the real ClientHello encrypted by proceeding it with a fake ClientHello. The response will contain enough information to fetch a key that can be used to encrypt the real ClientHello. Only the server will be able to decrypt this.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 46 points 10 months ago

Okay Chrome lovers, talk yourself out of this one…

[-] Toes@ani.social 31 points 10 months ago

Well you see, it's used by virtually everything. So get used to it. is all I imagine people saying, not my opinion.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago

Ahh yes, the good ole, “you don’t have a choice” nonsense. 😉

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 10 months ago

I switched away from chrome a while ago, but this is just stupid. Incognito has always said that it can’t stop sties from tracking you. It’s always been about stopping stuff from being stored locally. Here’s the message:

If you read that and thought it did more than it said, that’s on you.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I think what people are complaining about is that Google itself is tracking you. Not just with cookies, but with the chrome browser. Everything you do goes back to Google, regardless of their silly Google analytics, JavaScript tag that people block.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 10 months ago

Hey out of interest, did my comment just show up for you?

Not just with cookies, but with the chrome browser

Wow really? Has that actually been documented? Because yeah, that definitely changes things in my mind.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Just like I woke up, but it was probably there for a while.

Regarding documentation… I mean, it’s Google… C’mon. I’m sure there’s lots of stuff about them spying with minimal searching (don’t use Google.com though, hahaha)

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 10 months ago

it was probably there for a while

Nah, it might not have been. Have been dealing with federation issues that I think may only have sorted themselves out mere minutes before your comment.

I’m sure there’s lots of stuff about them spying with minimal searching

Eh, not good enough. They've got a lot of spying, but this is a specific claim. It needs to be supported by specific evidence.

It's like when people claim that Google devices are constantly recording audio and sending it back to base. Nobody has ever found evidence of it, and claims that they are are usually better explained by things like "they are recording your geolocation, and the geolocation of people you're with, and the things that the people you're with are Googling". That's enough data on its own, there's no need to reach for conspiratorial claims that lack evidence.

If there's actual evidence that the browser itself is sending tracking data back while in Incognito which links your non-incognito profile to what you're doing incognito, I'm concerned. But if it's just assumptions people are leaping to, I'm gonna go back to Occam's razor and make fewer assumptions.

[-] RayJW@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

I mean if a class action lawsuit is enough documentation, then here you go: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/30/1222268415/google-settles-5-billion-privacy-lawsuit

This is actually why they implemented this new disclaimer.

[-] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

I can bitch about chrome all day long... but none of that bitching will be about incognito mode as that was and continues to be an useful feature that did exactly what I expected it to do. Everything it said it did, it did.

Just because people made up their own imaginary ideas about what they think it does isn't really Google's fault. If people think snorkels allow them to scuba dive and then drown, I'm not about to blame the snorkel maker that wrote 'diving googles and snorkel' on the packaging.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Incognito mode didn't do what it was never advertised to do, and in fact does precisely what it always claimed. The horror!

I swear people like you act like every day Google simply exists is a fresh outrage.

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 32 points 10 months ago

Firefox's private browsing description is pretty solid if anybody managed to read it

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PoopMonster@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

I'm curious as to what led people to believe otherwise before this update. I don't use chrome but I recall it always being reffered to as porn mode. Meaning it just doesn't save browsing history, no more no less.

Did Google have misleading wording implying it was doing anything else?

[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

It also doesn’t preserve cookies after closing the window. I’m also curious what people expect that mode to do.

[-] kratoz29@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Well, fill incognito I guess, no trace for you, you can surf even the deep web... That for the less technical folks ofc.

[-] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 months ago

It seems the whole last decade has been focused on dumbing the Internet down for the dumbest 10% of the population. The Internet was better when it was less inclusive.

[-] tastysnacks@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

I remember interviews with the development team about it. As far as I know they were always clear what was happening on the back end.

[-] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 14 points 10 months ago

Good to see Google finally fixing issues

[-] Lojcs@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I find this very silly. Incognito always had disclaimers about how it doesn't protect you from tracking. Do people not know Google is just a website that does taking (or did anyway) like any other? And how tf did Google lose that lawsuit when eulas have "this software isn't fit for any purpose" clauses ~~and incognito was never advertised for privacy to begin with~~ and straight up tells you it doesnt give you privacy when you open it.

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

If I had to guess, is because the mode's very name strongly tells you so?

Definition-- adjective (of a person) having one's true identity concealed. "in order to observe you have to be incognito"

adverb in a way that conceals one's true identity. "he is now operating incognito"

noun an assumed or false identity. "she is locked in her incognito"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] scrappydoo@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

“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/

[-] Lojcs@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I stand corrected

[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

not protecting users from tracking is very different than wantonly tracking users yourself when they literally hit the privacy button

[-] Lojcs@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I would think such a thing would be a bigger liability. Because even if Google stops tracking you other trackers wouldn't. If people didn't read and understand "this does not protect against trackers" they definitely aren't going to do that with "this will stop Google's trackers but not 3rd party ones".

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

If you don't want to be tracked just use LibreWolf or Tor

[-] k_rol@lemmy.ca 18 points 10 months ago

I'd say give a try to Firefox

[-] jinwk00@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago

Isn't Librewolf fork of Firefox with hardened features pre-enabled?

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It is.

You could argue that the security patches Mozilla applies takes time to be applied to Librewolf, and also that all you need to do in Firefox is change a couple of options in the settings. People debate over which one matters more.

In the real world I imagine it hardly matters.

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

LibreWolf is just Firefox but better and Tor is Firefox but maximum privacy

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

WaterFox too

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

I can’t remember the last time I used Google Chrome.

Nothing but Firefox and a Linux chromium browser.

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Unfortunately I have it installed to double-check things and occasional compatibility purpose. Believe it or not, sites have started to appear who work in Chrome but not Firefox. Solution is most likely perfectly simple but developers just don't want to deal with it so I've been told "just use Chrome" few times in past few years.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

Firefox's InPrivate mode is the exact same feature.

[-] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Not quite, in 2018 they did add tracking protection to their list of goals for their Private browsing mode and have implemented features to reduce tracking/fingerprinting/etc while in it. The main focuses though were still the same at the start though: protecting against local data being saved.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Private_Browsing

We target Private Browsing to 3 privacy goals; in a Private Browsing session, Firefox:

  • Doesn’t save the browsing history or display it in the Firefox UI
  • Prevents the session's data from writing to persistent storage
  • Protects the session's data from online tracking
[-] uuhhhhmmmm@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

I was always curious why is it called Incognito or Private mode? Temporary or Guest session would make more sense: "You've entered a Temporary session. Your browsing history and cookies will not be saved."

[-] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Guest sessions already exist in the profile menu and is a separate feature. Guest doesn't save history/cookies/etc locally but also doesn't use your existing history, extensions, bookmarks, settings, etc. It's intended more for an actual guest user to sign into temporarily.

[-] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

I don't believe it was ever called 'private mode', or am I wrong on this?

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 6 points 10 months ago

Private Browsing, for browsing private parts.

[-] GhostMatter@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

Private Mode is on Firefox.

[-] FoxBJK@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago

Safari and Brave also both call it a private window

[-] Octopus1348@lemy.lol 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

On Firefox it's called Private mode, on Edge it's called InPrivate mode.

[-] Loce@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Every day I'm more glad I've got rid of that spyware browser-wannabe called Chrome.

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Talk about easy way out. "There, problem solved. It's not a violation if we write it somewhere in tiny font."

[-] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

The amount of words needed to fully explain this to tech illiterate idiots would be so many that those idiots would just argue they cannot be expected to read all of it. These people already do this with the terms + conditions documents they agree to.

Incognito mode did every single thing it said it did and behaved exactly as I expected from day one. Is there a single user here who actually was surprised by how it worked? Did anyone honestly think it was like Tor or something? Why? Where did anyone ever get that idea at all?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
545 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59381 readers
1058 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
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world