Everyone, this is not a lawsuit from dumb users who don't understand how Incognito works, this is an attempt to sue Google for pervasive universal tracking that is impossible to opt out of. Google...
Exemplary
Everyone, this is not a lawsuit from dumb users who don't understand how Incognito works, this is an attempt to sue Google for pervasive universal tracking that is impossible to opt out of. Google Analytics is everywhere, AdSense is everywhere, "Log In With Google" is everywhere, it is borderline impossible to exist in the modern world without being tracked by Google without your consent.
The lawyers and plaintiffs in this lawsuit understand how Incognito works and what it's for. The thesis of the lawsuit is that you cannot opt out from being tracked - the Incognito thing is just one example of how a user might attempt to opt out, because that's what Google recommends if you want to preserve your privacy. Here's how they phrase it:
Well aware of consumers’ legitimate and reasonable concerns over privacy, Google assured, and continues to assure, its consumers and users that they, and not Google, are “in control of what information [they] share with Google.” Google further represents that “across our services, you can adjust our privacy settings to control what we collect and how your information is used.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
As discussed in more detail below, Google tracks and collects consumer browsing history and other web activity data no matter what safeguards consumers undertake to protect their data privacy. Indeed, even when Google users launch a web browser with “private browsing mode” activated (as Google recommends to users wishing to browse the web privately), Google nevertheless tracks the users’ browsing data and other identifying information.
Private browsing is mentioned here not as "I thought this would work", but as "look at this pointless thing they recommend, even knowing it's useless". I recommend everyone read the complaint if you're interested in this: https://www.classaction.org/media/brown-et-al-v-google-llc-et-al.pdf. The framing of this article and every other article about this is very misleading.
I've never used incognito mode, except to circumvent paywalls on certain sites. I like the idea of incognito mode, but never, ever would I think for a second that Google isn't tracking me. Sure,...
I've never used incognito mode, except to circumvent paywalls on certain sites.
I like the idea of incognito mode, but never, ever would I think for a second that Google isn't tracking me.
Sure, I'll use Firefox and duck duck go, but I don't trust any of them, but especially not Google.
But that's because nobody should think google is not tracking you in incognito mode. That's not the point of incognito mode. Your browser will even tell you every single time you open an incognito...
But that's because nobody should think google is not tracking you in incognito mode. That's not the point of incognito mode. Your browser will even tell you every single time you open an incognito window that you can still be tracked.
All of this seems to come from a misunderstanding of what "incognito" means by people who don't understand computers at all. It means it won't leave data on your local computer, not that you are anonymous online.
I love incognito because I can look at stuff without it getting in my history.
Incognito mode, whether Google or Firefox is just a shortcut to reduce website cookie tracking and no history footprint in my browser history. I have no expectation that the browser isn't tracking...
Incognito mode, whether Google or Firefox is just a shortcut to reduce website cookie tracking and no history footprint in my browser history. I have no expectation that the browser isn't tracking my activity. I combine my incognito mode with Mullvad VPN. This brings me a feeling of anonymous browsing. Are there other things that can contribute to anonymous browsing?
You're asking a lot there, friend. There's TOR, there are other more privacy-oriented browsers, the general security of web frameworks... the list goes on. TAILS is a bootable OS that Edward...
You're asking a lot there, friend. There's TOR, there are other more privacy-oriented browsers, the general security of web frameworks... the list goes on. TAILS is a bootable OS that Edward Snowden used to talk about that was - at one point - a "secure" "private" way to communicate.
Who are you trying to be anonymous from? If you just want to block ads, thats one thing - if you're trying to hide from 3-letter-agencies... well... good luck with that in this day and age.
Personally, I do like you - but I swapped Chrome for Brave - a de-googled version of Chrome with better privacy protection - though not all web sites like it. Sometimes I'll toggle on the VPN when I'd like some privacy or on a public WiFi (if only to test if that's still 'allowed' - if your coffee shop blocks VPNs, I'm out.).
Beyond that, I don't even try to hide. So long as I'm frustrating the greedy data harvesters out there, that's about all I can do without putting in a bunch of effort into an endless paranoid black hole of "am I safe now"? - when I don't even have a reason to. If I were deriving an income from illegal activities I might, but I'm not, so....
Kind of reminds me of the “autopilot” situation with Tesla. They took a product (smart cruise control with steering assist) and called it something else. Would a person who isn’t well versed in...
Kind of reminds me of the “autopilot” situation with Tesla. They took a product (smart cruise control with steering assist) and called it something else. Would a person who isn’t well versed in the technology understand that “autopilot” doesn’t mean fully autonomous driving? Similarly, doesn’t “incognito mode” with its hat/glasses logo (suggesting a disguise) and dark background not give the mistaken impression of anonymity on the internet? The tech savvy realize incognito in this case means “don’t store this in my history locally” but i can understand laypeople feeling misled.
Except Incognito/Privacy mode, or whatever any other browser calls it, has always been this one thing. Don't store cookies, don't store history, go to a site as if I've never been there before....
Except Incognito/Privacy mode, or whatever any other browser calls it, has always been this one thing. Don't store cookies, don't store history, go to a site as if I've never been there before.
It's why every browsers incognito/privacy splash page has a disclaimer that it doesn't make you anonymous online.
Tesla actively marketed autopilot as "fully self driving" (fine print: actually not self driving). Google were the first to copy the feature from Safari and used a different word to differentiate themselves in case of legal claims. That they're going after Google instead of Mozilla / Apple is either a coin flip or a decision made based on who is most likely to settle out of court.
Not knowing that the return address on a letter can be traced back to you because you took pains to put it in a mailbox across town is just a gross misunderstanding of how the system works. Getting mad at the envelope vendor because they're selling black envelopes but your partner got the return mail at your house isn't a strong case.
The suit isn't about Incognito mode. It's about pervasive Google tracking across the entire Internet without a legitimate way to opt out. The Incognito part is basically referring to Google...
The suit isn't about Incognito mode. It's about pervasive Google tracking across the entire Internet without a legitimate way to opt out. The Incognito part is basically referring to Google recommending people use Incognito mode when they request not to be tracked.
The issue with Incognito mode is google saying "it protects your privacy" then giving people a splash page saying "no it doesn't because the destination site may track you" while glossing over the part where they're the ones doing the tracking.
The laughable part to me is google is trying to claim there's no losses and in fact, people are benefiting from getting targeted ads. I can't tell if they're delusional or sticking to their...
The laughable part to me is google is trying to claim there's no losses and in fact, people are benefiting from getting targeted ads. I can't tell if they're delusional or sticking to their marketing scheme. No one likes ads or benefits from them, even the companies paying for them would see more benefit by simply giving the money away. Ads are no more than a nuisance with half the clicks being accidents and the rest by those clicking for freebies (fraudulently increasing the # of clicks and thus the ad cost), gullible people and cats. What I'd like to see is the government doing a study to see how truthful ad companies are, then busting them all after finding out they're just scammers.
I could even tolerate ads if they weren't so big and in the way. So many sites have moving animated Javascript powered audio on bullshit ads that just ruin the entire experience. If we could just...
I could even tolerate ads if they weren't so big and in the way. So many sites have moving animated Javascript powered audio on bullshit ads that just ruin the entire experience. If we could just go back to static banner ads I could at least think about whitelisting sites that I like again.
God yes please. Any and all actions to try and un-shittify the web - and the US economy in general. Ad-based business models should have been smothered in the crib. (Sorry if that's excessively...
What I'd like to see is the government doing a study to see how truthful ad companies are, then busting them all after finding out they're just scammers.
God yes please. Any and all actions to try and un-shittify the web - and the US economy in general. Ad-based business models should have been smothered in the crib. (Sorry if that's excessively graphic.)
Everyone, this is not a lawsuit from dumb users who don't understand how Incognito works, this is an attempt to sue Google for pervasive universal tracking that is impossible to opt out of. Google Analytics is everywhere, AdSense is everywhere, "Log In With Google" is everywhere, it is borderline impossible to exist in the modern world without being tracked by Google without your consent.
The lawyers and plaintiffs in this lawsuit understand how Incognito works and what it's for. The thesis of the lawsuit is that you cannot opt out from being tracked - the Incognito thing is just one example of how a user might attempt to opt out, because that's what Google recommends if you want to preserve your privacy. Here's how they phrase it:
Private browsing is mentioned here not as "I thought this would work", but as "look at this pointless thing they recommend, even knowing it's useless". I recommend everyone read the complaint if you're interested in this: https://www.classaction.org/media/brown-et-al-v-google-llc-et-al.pdf. The framing of this article and every other article about this is very misleading.
I've never used incognito mode, except to circumvent paywalls on certain sites.
I like the idea of incognito mode, but never, ever would I think for a second that Google isn't tracking me.
Sure, I'll use Firefox and duck duck go, but I don't trust any of them, but especially not Google.
But that's because nobody should think google is not tracking you in incognito mode. That's not the point of incognito mode. Your browser will even tell you every single time you open an incognito window that you can still be tracked.
All of this seems to come from a misunderstanding of what "incognito" means by people who don't understand computers at all. It means it won't leave data on your local computer, not that you are anonymous online.
I love incognito because I can look at stuff without it getting in my history.
Incognito mode, whether Google or Firefox is just a shortcut to reduce website cookie tracking and no history footprint in my browser history. I have no expectation that the browser isn't tracking my activity. I combine my incognito mode with Mullvad VPN. This brings me a feeling of anonymous browsing. Are there other things that can contribute to anonymous browsing?
You're asking a lot there, friend. There's TOR, there are other more privacy-oriented browsers, the general security of web frameworks... the list goes on. TAILS is a bootable OS that Edward Snowden used to talk about that was - at one point - a "secure" "private" way to communicate.
Who are you trying to be anonymous from? If you just want to block ads, thats one thing - if you're trying to hide from 3-letter-agencies... well... good luck with that in this day and age.
Personally, I do like you - but I swapped Chrome for Brave - a de-googled version of Chrome with better privacy protection - though not all web sites like it. Sometimes I'll toggle on the VPN when I'd like some privacy or on a public WiFi (if only to test if that's still 'allowed' - if your coffee shop blocks VPNs, I'm out.).
Beyond that, I don't even try to hide. So long as I'm frustrating the greedy data harvesters out there, that's about all I can do without putting in a bunch of effort into an endless paranoid black hole of "am I safe now"? - when I don't even have a reason to. If I were deriving an income from illegal activities I might, but I'm not, so....
Kind of reminds me of the “autopilot” situation with Tesla. They took a product (smart cruise control with steering assist) and called it something else. Would a person who isn’t well versed in the technology understand that “autopilot” doesn’t mean fully autonomous driving? Similarly, doesn’t “incognito mode” with its hat/glasses logo (suggesting a disguise) and dark background not give the mistaken impression of anonymity on the internet? The tech savvy realize incognito in this case means “don’t store this in my history locally” but i can understand laypeople feeling misled.
Except Incognito/Privacy mode, or whatever any other browser calls it, has always been this one thing. Don't store cookies, don't store history, go to a site as if I've never been there before.
It's why every browsers incognito/privacy splash page has a disclaimer that it doesn't make you anonymous online.
Tesla actively marketed autopilot as "fully self driving" (fine print: actually not self driving). Google were the first to copy the feature from Safari and used a different word to differentiate themselves in case of legal claims. That they're going after Google instead of Mozilla / Apple is either a coin flip or a decision made based on who is most likely to settle out of court.
Not knowing that the return address on a letter can be traced back to you because you took pains to put it in a mailbox across town is just a gross misunderstanding of how the system works. Getting mad at the envelope vendor because they're selling black envelopes but your partner got the return mail at your house isn't a strong case.
The suit isn't about Incognito mode. It's about pervasive Google tracking across the entire Internet without a legitimate way to opt out. The Incognito part is basically referring to Google recommending people use Incognito mode when they request not to be tracked.
The issue with Incognito mode is google saying "it protects your privacy" then giving people a splash page saying "no it doesn't because the destination site may track you" while glossing over the part where they're the ones doing the tracking.
The laughable part to me is google is trying to claim there's no losses and in fact, people are benefiting from getting targeted ads. I can't tell if they're delusional or sticking to their marketing scheme. No one likes ads or benefits from them, even the companies paying for them would see more benefit by simply giving the money away. Ads are no more than a nuisance with half the clicks being accidents and the rest by those clicking for freebies (fraudulently increasing the # of clicks and thus the ad cost), gullible people and cats. What I'd like to see is the government doing a study to see how truthful ad companies are, then busting them all after finding out they're just scammers.
I could even tolerate ads if they weren't so big and in the way. So many sites have moving animated Javascript powered audio on bullshit ads that just ruin the entire experience. If we could just go back to static banner ads I could at least think about whitelisting sites that I like again.
God yes please. Any and all actions to try and un-shittify the web - and the US economy in general. Ad-based business models should have been smothered in the crib. (Sorry if that's excessively graphic.)