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.
not protecting users from tracking is very different than wantonly tracking users yourself when they literally hit the privacy button
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”.
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”
“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
Okay Chrome lovers, talk yourself out of this one…
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.
Well you see, it’s used by virtually everything. So get used to it. is all I imagine people saying, not my opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Talk about easy way out. “There, problem solved. It’s not a violation if we write it somewhere in tiny font.”
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?
Expected incognito functionality sits in the gaping chasm between actual incognito functionality and TOR. When I’m being told I can go incognito - you know, sneaky, in disguise, I don’t expect to have all of my activity broadcast back to those that say I’m incognito.
Of course, trusting current Google is foolish, but that doesn’t make it less deceptive.
So you’re saying it’s Google’s fault you relied entirely on false assumptions based only on the single-word feature name and ignored the very short disclaimer that appears every time you use it?
So do you feel the naming was inherently misleading which led you astray? Because incognito mode absolutely kept things ‘sneaky’ in terms of hiding the things I look up from other people who use the same computer. Which is specifically what Google said it would do and showed examples of in TV commercials. And it definitely did (and still does) that.
I’m also struggling to understand what you feel you ‘trusted’ Google on exactly. What did they tell you that you believed but, as it turns out, was not true?
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.”
I don’t believe it was ever called ‘private mode’, or am I wrong on this?
Private Browsing, at your service 🫡
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.
