People still don’t know what the incognito mode does, huh
The name is blatantly misleading. The very definition of the term “incognito” means having one’s true identity concealed, so I can’t blame anyone with comprehension of the English language for being misled at a glance. However, like anyone else here, I do not expect this to lead to any actual progress toward more privacy.
True, but it also explicitly states on the incognito new tab page that it doesn’t prevent tracking. Personally, I don’t see Google losing this case.
I strongly agree, the name should be something that better reflects what it does. Evidently, many people are being misled by it.
Maybe that could be grounds for a lawsuit. After all, deliberate manipulation of users to leech as much data as possible is certainly not something Google is afraid to do, so it stands to reason that this is what they’re doing with incognito mode, too.
Does it not add to your history so you can search sketchy or embarrassing things? I never thought they weren’t tracking my rewatches of BLACK MEAT ANAL HEAT 6, just that the phrase wouldn’t show up in my search history or recently visited. I’m not going to NOT rewatch a classic like that, but I don’t need it popping up in my history when I’m about to give a presentation
Exactly that. It doesn’t save any history, and that’s pretty much it.
This isn’t about every website tracking you regardless. Chrome kept logging browsing information even in incognito mode.
I’m shocked. SHOCKED I tell you! Who could have seen sweet old Google doing something like this!
Add a zero to the right, that would be awesome
$5 billion Google lawsuit over ‘incognito mode’ tracking moves a step closer to trial 0
Like this?
the right a zero
No, dingus, like this
Perfect
It’s a closed browser from a data mining company, of course it kept on mining the user. The “The user didn’t want this tracked” is probably juicy information to mark what they were looking at with.
This will be an interesting case.
“Your honor, our terms of service clearly state that we watch every user jerk off, and they consented to it”
It really shouldn’t be that interesting
How is it not? If there is good proof, that’s interesting. Is the judge and jury able to rule well with that information? How does Google respond if found guilty? Proof, verdict, response, each has interest to privacy.
deleted by creator
Its still quite a bit. Just because they are worth 1.66T doesn’t mean they have that to spend
But it would get publicity, further open up a conversation about privacy, and change (some) users’ minds.
Does google ever pay any fine? I have heard of many news where google was slapped with a fine but never heard that they actually paid
Probably because it’s not newsworthy as it’s systematic, for instance Facebook and Googke have had to pay ever ibcreasing fines for GDPR violation, now exceeding a billion dollar, and get in line with the regulation, or get forbidden to opperate in the EU.
They have been getting those fines for years with a delay of a couple of months to pay them. They would have been barred from the EU long ago if they had not paid them.
It’s like the governments benefits over these big tech companies breaking the laws set by the government.
Lol you make it look like the government is keeping the money. The population is benefitting from fines imposed on companies violating the law, what’s odd about this?
We’re talking billions of dollars, where is that spent? I’m no expert on the topic but I’ve yet to see any significant improvement from the massive amount of money the states and federal government takes from these companies. I would consider giving it back to the users who had their privacy broken would be the right move, for justice, but I have not heard that ever happening on scales like this. Redbull did like $15 gift cards for their issues with “Redbull gives you wings”, but haven’t seen that with big tech…I really hope you can provide more information and enlighten me.
There have been many millions of dollar fines over the years and many communities, roadways and overall infrastructure can be improved - which our taxes are supposed to pay for.
I believe you should Google that kind of stuff instead of trying to make it a debate in comments. There is no single right move about what to do with the money, but governments are spending billions (including those from these fines) to build their countries https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Government_expenditure_on_general_public_services
Yeah, I figured I would need to go looking around and try to understand why you say “The population is benefitting”. Thank you for the link, I see the EU has made some attempts at transparency, but 15 minutes looking around still can’t find actual details on what exactly the expenses were on just by type of expense. Probably in there somewhere.
My original comment was in regards to yours “Facebook and Googke have had to pay ever ibcreasing fines”, and I was commenting primarily in regards to that part. And your follow up was formed in a question so I gave more context. Not trying to debate, it’s just crazy amounts of money, keeps happening and it’s like it’s turned into a new way of doing business that benefits government and companies.
Also, not part of the EU, so I’m largely focused on the US in particular. But I do appreciate the response and I’ll personally check it out more. Didn’t mean to come off as aggressively or combative kind of “debating” or otherwise just information seeking and I apologize if it did.
Removed by mod
Fuck Google
Am I reading this right? As far as I can see, the complaint seems to be that Google would be “tracking” people even if they browse in any browser’s incognito mode.
Of course they do. If I open a private window in Firefox, and then login to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, or any other website, these websites can try to track me. How would any browser control what happens or doesn’t happen on the server side of things?
These plaintiffs would be better off sueing the companies of these websites for ignoring privacy laws and continuing to add tracking scripts to their sites.
Yes, there are browsers that try to send as little personal information as possible, like the Tor Browser, but even that one can’t disable a Facebook server’s internal logging data - how could it? All modern browsers make it quite clear what their respective incognito mode does - and what it doesn’t do.
You’re missing the fact that Google is both the company behind the most popular browser used to access content on the internet and the most popular website on the internet. Their browser says incognito mode offers protections that their website then runs roughshod over. They’re the perfect company to sue over this because the website can’t shift blame to the browser and the browser can’t shift blame to the website.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Their browser says incognito mode offers protections that their website then runs roughshod over.
That’s the point of my comment. I won’t say “don’t sue Google”, I’ll say “sue Google, but actually read what it says when you open an incognito window”. Offers protections against other people who use this device. And that’s it.
This is a good explanation, thanks.
These plaintiffs would be better off sueing the companies of these websites for ignoring privacy laws and continuing to add tracking scripts to their sites.
That’s precisely what these people are doing. They’re not suing Google because Chrome doesn’t prevent these sites from building profiles and tracking users even while in Incognito Mode, but because Google themselves are engaging in such privacy invasive tactics.
I think we might agree on the last part, but that’s exactly the point of my comment. If these people are suing Google for privacy invasion tactics, all the more power to them.
But the headline infers the opposite: “lawsuit over ‘incognito mode’ tracking”. This reads like the plaintiffs don’t understand what this “incognito mode” actually does.
