Google 'Private Browsing' Mode Not Really Private, Texas Lawsuit Says (reuters.com) 99
The Google search engine collects data on users who think they can be anonymous if they use a "private browsing" mode, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed on Thursday, filing an amended privacy lawsuit against the Alphabet unit. Reuters reports: Texas, Indiana, Washington State and the District of Columbia filed separate suits against Google in January in state courts over what they called deceptive location-tracking practices that invade users' privacy. Paxton's filing adds Google's Incognito mode to the lawsuit filed in January. Incognito mode or "private browsing" is a web browser function that Paxton said implies Google will not track search history or location activity.
The lawsuit said Google offers the option of "private browsing" that could include "viewing highly personal websites that might indicate, for example, their medical history, political persuasion, or sexual orientation. Or maybe they simply want to buy a surprise gift without the gift recipient being tipped off by a barrage of targeted ads." The suit said "in reality, Google deceptively collects an array of personal data even when a user has engaged Incognito mode." Paxton previously alleged Google misled consumers by continuing to track their location even when users sought to prevent it. Google has a "Location History" setting and informs users if they turn it off "the places you go are no longer stored," Texas said.
The lawsuit said Google offers the option of "private browsing" that could include "viewing highly personal websites that might indicate, for example, their medical history, political persuasion, or sexual orientation. Or maybe they simply want to buy a surprise gift without the gift recipient being tipped off by a barrage of targeted ads." The suit said "in reality, Google deceptively collects an array of personal data even when a user has engaged Incognito mode." Paxton previously alleged Google misled consumers by continuing to track their location even when users sought to prevent it. Google has a "Location History" setting and informs users if they turn it off "the places you go are no longer stored," Texas said.
Twice indicted AG (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
The party of law and order.
Re: (Score:1)
The party of law and order.
Well... their law and their order anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Twice indicted AG (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do you think we have bathrooms with opaque walls and doors? Do you have something to hide if you don't want other people staring at you while taking a shit?
Why do you think not everyone is a nudist (climate and weather permitting)?
Golly gee, all those people must be hiding some terrible secrets! (/s)
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is the usual slogan of police-state fascists, justifying their infringement of personal rights for the sake of chasing Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse [wikipedia.org] while usually being super hypocritical about it, because they themselves get to hide whatever they want and are pretty much free from accountability of their actions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't help but feeling this falls under the nothing to worry about if nothing to hide header.
Which completely misses the point. Regardless of whether one has "something to hide" or not, if private mode is not suppose to track you or save browsing usage, etc... it shouldn't -- or it should clearly state otherwise so users can make informed decisions.
Re:Twice indicted AG (Score:5, Informative)
it should clearly state otherwise so users can make informed decisions.
When I start an incognito window in Chrome, it clearly states what is and isn't tracked in plain English in the middle of the window.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And a button that has "No" displayed can do whatever we code it to do, including doing what "Yes" would have done but hide it from the user
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
it should clearly state otherwise so users can make informed decisions.
When I start an incognito window in Chrome, it clearly states what is and isn't tracked in plain English in the middle of the window.
I think the issue here is that while Chrome may not track you, Google (may) still collect information even in Incognito Mode. And while the window clearly states that "Chrome won't save the following info..." that doesn't mean Google isn't, even though they're basically one in the same. A carefully-worded disclaimer doesn't (always) get one off the hook.
Re: (Score:2)
it should clearly state otherwise so users can make informed decisions.
When I start an incognito window in Chrome, it clearly states what is and isn't tracked in plain English in the middle of the window.
I think the issue here is that while Chrome may not track you, Google (may) still collect information even in Incognito Mode. And while the window clearly states that "Chrome won't save the following info..." that doesn't mean Google isn't, even though they're basically one in the same. A carefully-worded disclaimer doesn't (always) get one off the hook.
It also doesn't mean that Facebook or Microsoft or Apple or any other website you visit won't collect information. Chrome doesn't control what websites do, and drawing an arbitrary line based on whether that website is owned by the same company would create an artificial illusion of protection that does not actually exist.
Besides, the whole point of Incognito mode is that you have a separate cookie jar. If a website tracks your click behavior or whatever while in Incognito mode, those cookies go away as s
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what it tells me:
Which sounds like Google is saving nothing. But if you visit a website and login of course they know it's you, and if you're using a work computer they could have keystroke logging, and your ISP knows where you visit because it has to route the pa
Re: (Score:3)
This guy doesn't seem to understand what Incognito Mode is. Google has put a lot of effort into making it undetectable for websites, so when you visit them it looks just like any other browser that happens to not have any existing tracking cookies.
This bloke seems to be complaining that when he visits a Google website with Incognito Mode turned on, Google serves up the standard array of cookies and does geo-location based on IP address. Which is by design, if it was any other way Incognito Mode would be use
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, one wonders what highly personal website Paxton might be browsing, and if they are just embarrassing or legally actionable.
How about your personal communications with your physician? Your shrink? Your conversations with your trusted ones?
How about your plans for a business? The investments you did to get a deal? Your market strategy? Your income?
YOUR life might be such that that others can't capitalize on while it leaving you in ruins, but that doesn't mean everyone's is.
Re: (Score:2)
We live in a time when free speech conflicting with the government's approved talking points is deemed "misinformation," and in which some politicians have seriously proposed imprisoning those who express those viewpoints.
There are plenty of folks unable and/or unwilling to actually think, and who will therefore never run afoul of those who have tried, and will likely succeed sooner rather than later, to criminalize free speech.
But the rest of us unfortunately have MUCH to hide.
We need to be able to do that
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Google clearly warns (Score:4, Informative)
That warning should be adequate defense to this lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, the big warning is clear.
You've gone Incognito
Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity. However, downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved. Learn more
Chrome won’t save the following information: * Your browsing history * Cookies and site data * Information entered in forms
Your activity might still be visible to: * Websites you visit * Your employer or school * Your internet service provider
EVERY SINGLE TIME.
It used to also have "people standing behind you" on the list, but they removed it.
This is AG Paxton doing the nonsense Texans know he likes to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google clearly warns (Score:5, Insightful)
But... notice what the warning fails to mention: it does not say "...and, although people who use your device won't see your history or know what sites you visited, WE will know where you want, and we make no promises to not use that information any way we want to."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking at cross purposes. I am addressing the question "what does that warning statement say, and is it clear?"
You are addressing the question "what is Google actually doing?"
These are different questions. They have different answers.
...I know this is Slashdot, but would you at least consider not posting if you don't know what you're talking about? Please?
I am talking about the statement given above. Not what Google does, but the text of their warning statement. You don't seem to have read or understood that statement. Would you at least consider not posting until you understand what the topic of discussion is?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then read what the warning says and ignore what you're trying to read into it.
Exactly.
and also notice what it doesn't say, and ignore what you think it ought to have said.
Re: (Score:2)
WE will know where you want
That statement is only true if you tell them who you are. If you don't log in to your Google account in the Incognito Mode window, they don't know where *you* went.
Which is all explained on the Incognito Mode page you see when you first start it:
Your activity might still be visible to:
- Websites that you visit
- Your employer or school
- Your Internet service provider
Google (doesn't) clearly warn (Score:2)
You are talking what the statement says. I am pointing out what it does not say.
If you don't log in to your Google account in the Incognito Mode window, they don't know where *you* went.
Yes, a nice assertion... by you. Not by Google. Read that "clear warning" again. Does it say that they won't know where you went? No, it sort of accidentally forgets to mention that. It says the browser doesn't save where you are. It doesn't say that they don't get this information.
Now, perhaps it is true that, as you say, Google doesn't know where you went. But you claimed that the warning "clearly" says that. It does not. Rea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you've caught Google's browser tracking your web surfing despite being in incognito mode?
No.
I've caught Google's Warning Message failing to state that it won't track your web surfing despite being in incognito mode.
Re: (Score:1)
That statement is only true if you tell them who you are. If you don't log in to your Google account in the Incognito Mode window, they don't know where *you* went.
Which is all explained on the Incognito Mode page you see when you first start it:
Your activity might still be visible to:
- Websites that you visit
- Your employer or school
- Your Internet service provider
You just proved that's not explained on the Incognito Mode page you see when you first start it! In this scenario Google is not a website that you visit, your employer or school, OR your ISP! Google is deliberately creating a false impression that they are not tracking your browsing in incognito mode, and then doing so! That is clear and deliberate fraud!
Re: (Score:3)
How does Google track your activity in Incognito Mode if you don't visit their websites?
They don't do it through the browser, Chrome does not store any history or send any URLs to Google or anything like that. The only interaction with Google is via their websites.
By the way, some people seem to think that because you get search suggestions in Incognito Mode, Chrome is sending your typing to Google. That's not the case, in Incognito Mode it generates suggestions locally. They describe it here: https://www.g [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How does Google track your activity in Incognito Mode if you don't visit their websites?
They don't do it through the browser
The question is whether when I go to a website and they use google analytics if that counts as visiting a google website. I don't think it does. The average person understands visiting a site as actually going there, not just your browser requesting some resources from there that don't even cause output to be returned to the user. I think that text is intentionally misleading, because you don't even have to "visit" a site (as the layman would understand the term) to be tracked by google. They know they're t
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that instead of it saying "websites you visit" it needs to say "websites you visit and any other entities whose tracking systems they incorporate".
I suppose that's reasonable, people don't necessarily think about that when they visit a website. But that's more knowledge about the internet in general and doesn't contradict what Google wrote. It's an omission perhaps, but not misleading, legally speaking.
The other weakness in this legal argument is that while Google Analytics does track some
Re: (Score:2)
It's an omission perhaps, but not misleading, legally speaking.
It's a deliberately misleading omission intended to benefit google by confusing users. Google knows what they're doing. It's not like the people making the browser don't know about it.
while Google Analytics does track some site activity, Google Analytics V4 anonymises it and that cannot be turned off.
Level of trust in Google demonstrated: high
Level of trust in Google warranted: zero
Imbalance: high
Re: (Score:2)
It comes down to what you can prove in court. "I have no trust in Google" isn't a winning argument. You need some evidence and there isn't any.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem for users is that "if" Google is [mis]using analytics for deeper tracking purposes, it's probably under NSL as it's part of an NSA warrantless surveillance program. Since we know that Google is part of such programs (if not from before they dropped the evil canary, before then) it's safest to assume that any tracking they are doing is being used for these purposes. Assuming otherwise is foolish at best.
So you're right that a court case comes down more or less to what you can prove, but for
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether when I go to a website and they use google analytics if that counts as visiting a google website.
What about when I go to a website and they have a Facebook "Like" button? Facebook can track me, too. What's the difference? Both are anonymous tracking, because the Incognito window doesn't have access to the cookie jar or web storage that would otherwise tell Facebook or Google who you are. And both are ephemeral, because as soon as the Incognito window closes, any identity info stored in your cookie jar or other web storage goes away.
So I fail to see how this is even slightly relevant. Chrome can't
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome won’t save the following information: ...
Maybe "Chrome" doesn't, but that doesn't mean Google itself isn't saving information and I think what's being argued here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem when companies use words that have a certain meaning, and then change that meaning in the (often hidden) explanation of the feature.
Incognito means something. What the browser does, is not what it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So you have a mode called "Incognito", which means something, and then they present you with a whole list why what you just used is not, in fact, "Incognito".
Or "Private Browsing". Stop calling it that if the actual meaning of the words "Incognito" and "Private" do not at all reflect of what it actually does.
It doesn't matter how much text you use to point out that it isn't "Incognito", it's still NOT Incognito.
I will sell you bread, but the label on the bread says it doesn't contain grains, water, salt or
Re: (Score:1)
This is the problem when companies use words that have a certain meaning, and then change that meaning in the (often hidden) explanation of the feature.
Oh?
From the Incognito window:
"Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity.
Chrome won't save the following information:
Your browsing history
Cookies and site data
Information entered in forms
Your activity might still be visible to:
Websites you visit
Your employer or school
Your internet service provider"
Would YOU care to explain which of those isn't true?
Because the idiots behind this lawsuit refuse to say any of those are not true.
All they did was makeup a bunch of shit they WANT incognito mode to do, which incognito mode never claimed to do.
Idiots claim it says google won't see your location data.
Can you point out where it says google won't see your location data?
I can point out where it says your activity is visible to websites you visit, like google.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The people of Texas need to go to school. (Score:1)
By Design (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:By Design (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing the population of Texas was out sick when they taught "reading" in school.
No, just a few who now occupy the top seats of government.
The governor is a paralyzed lawyer who got millions of dollars in settlement for his injury, and then pushed for caps of a few hundred thousand dollars to future people who are maimed or killed. He's a strong believer in the "I got mine, F*** you!" mindset. Covid was another, once he got his shots he acted as though the entire world had immunity and could re-open, seen at all kinds of events without a masks, and when called out over it would say he already had his shots so he doesn't care.
The AG likes to find new and creative ways to abuse women, the LGBQ community, break up families, and encourage kids to commit suicide. In addition to his push for suing women for seeking health care, forbidding teens from learning about sex education, and wanting to break up families of kids who come out as gay, he's also currently fighting the state ethics committee for hiding his own transactions, and securities fraud investigations.
They're both amazing pieces of work. When you think of slimy politicians and used car salesmen, they're both textbook examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean they even elected the Zodiac killer as a senator.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. As far as I know, Google never implied that. I'm guessing the population of Texas was out sick when they taught "reading" in school.
Yep, Google makes it quite clear that Pron... erm, I mean Incognito mode is only about hiding what you do from your local browsing history. Anyone seeking an ounce of privacy should already be running an adblocker and script blocker (like Ublock Origin and Privacy Badger).
As for Texas. This is more about getting the corporation to give them concessions as they start the Gilead. Reminding the uppity Californian businesses who's in control.
Disclaimer (Score:4, Informative)
On the Chrome incognito page, it says pretty clearly:
"Your activity might still be visible to Websites you visit, your employer or school, your ISP"
It also has an option to block third-party cookies.
Re: (Score:2)
On the Chrome incognito page, it says pretty clearly:
"Your activity might still be visible to Websites you visit, your employer or school, your ISP"
It also has an option to block third-party cookies.
So if I am not visiting a Google website, then Google must be my employer or my school or my ISP if they are collecting my browser history, right? Oh wait, they are none of those things? And google is still watching what URLs I visit while in incognito mode? That's fraud. Period.
Now, I know that third parties can track you when you visit websites, when those websites load content from them. And you presumably know that. But that's irrelevant for two reasons. One, even most reasonable people don't know that,
Re: (Score:2)
Two, Google isn't mentioning that here
It says "Your activity might still be visible to Websites you visit."
Re: (Score:2)
It says "Your activity might still be visible to Websites you visit."
Right, but what does that mean? What is the definition of visit? Am I visiting google-analytics.com when I enter some non-google site's URL into the bar and go there? On a technical level, my browser is certainly retrieving a resource from there, and that clearly gives Google the ability to log potential PII when it does that. But is that what a layman would understand is meant by the word? I submit that it is not, and that you are in fact not "visiting" a google website under those conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a stretch of an argument, but we'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a stretch if someone else were doing the tracking. But Google is making the browser they claim you're not being tracked through unless you do certain things, and then they're also making the trackers that track you even if you don't do those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and Google?
Nothing says (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't look at how I'm being investigated for multiple crimes and have abused my office like trying to go after one of the hated big tech companies supposedly trying to silence conservatives. I mean, the whole private browsing thing has been around for how long, but he waits until he's been indicted twice, being sued by the Texas State Bar for corruption, and it to be an election year to file this lawsuit? This is cheap political theater at its worst, and everything that people on both sides of the political aisle say they hate, but it'll probably serve as catnip to quite a few in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is that for those that want to believe the truth does not matter.
https://www.livescience.com/wh... [livescience.com]
Google privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
You said Google and expected privacy? You must be an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad (Score:2)
If women don't have the right to privacy over their own bodies you don't get to have privacy over your web browsing.
After all, Thomas has said no such right to privacy exists in the Constituion.
Re: (Score:3)
Thomas has said no such right to privacy exists in the Constituion.
As much as I wish there were a right to privacy, he's not wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's true. People had nosy neighbors etc. If you were drawing witch circles, someone found out.
Re: (Score:2)
Thomas has said no such right to privacy exists in the Constituion.
As much as I wish there were a right to privacy, he's not wrong.
It's called the 9th Amendment. This is what happens when people don't know what the Constitution is about and should have no role in "interpreting" it. Considering Thomas claims to be an "originalist", he clearly doesn't understand the full depth of the document. As do many others.
Re: (Score:2)
The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment explicitly bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but this amendment does not explicitly bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Not sure how that isn't plain as day. Just because we didn't list every right you have in this document doesn't mean you don't have them.
As Cornell Law School put it on their Ninth Amendment page [cornell.edu]:
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.
Which is exactly why Madison put in this amendment. He wanted the most expansive rights possible for the people but understood it was impossible to list all such rights.
People like to t
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how that isn't plain as day. Just because we didn't list every right you have in this document doesn't mean you don't have them.
It's not plain as day because it's not clear what "right" means. Do I have the right to free housing? Why not?
Do I have the right to piss on the ground outside, as men have done for millennia? Why not?
How do you define what a right is, and what it isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Canada, the right to privacy comes from our equivalent to your 4th amendment according to our Supreme Court, Section 8
With reasonable revolving around the expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that apply to private companies?
Re: (Score:2)
Makes it easier to pass laws forcing private businesses to respect peoples privacy as well as sue of businesses that abuse your common law right to privacy, things like cameras in washrooms, going through personal correspondence on the company computer or drug tests are automatically illegal.
My CPU thanks me for deleting chrome. (Score:1)
You actually have to wipe the drive to remove all traces of it. My processor usage went from pegged constantly, to 2%. My electric bill went down slightly. I dumped it years ago. Don't miss anything about it.
What the heck was it doing with all those CPU cycles anyway?
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Executing that malware you had misattributed to Chrome. How's the family planning going? Must be hard getting a baby every time you drain the bathtub.
Re: (Score:2)
Amnesiac browsing mode (Score:5, Insightful)
Amnesiac browsing mode would be a better description. The browser itself forgets everything, but the rest of the web needn't forget anything about what you have done in 'private' mode. Private mode means amnesia, not privacy. Just like you may totally forget what you did after two bottles of wine and half a dozen vodkas, those around you may remember the arse you made of yourself, and may possibly remind you, to their amusement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you may totally forget what you did after two bottles of wine and half a dozen vodkas
Dammit, Google must have been live-streaming me last night!
You are not the user (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incognito? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha (Score:2)
Your activity might still be visible to::
Plus the case seems to confuse the Google website and the Google Chrome browser, two separate products/services from Google. Not to mention they are saying Google should be able to track users who use incognito mode iso they know who to not track. It's stupid.
Quit being so f'ing dense (Score:1)
"Incognito mode or "private browsing" is a web browser function that Paxton said implies Google will not track search history or location activity."
It doesn't imply any such thing. If you actually READ (a skill lost on most government officials, apparently) what Incognito mode does, it's plain and simple: no trace left IN THE BROWSER of your visit. No history, no permanent cookies. It doesn't do a damn to hide anything you do from the websites you use; that activity happens ON THE WEBSITE, of course the