Chrome Updates Incognito Warning To Admit Google Tracks Users In 'Private' Mode (arstechnica.com) 40
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Google is updating the warning on Chrome's Incognito mode to make it clear that Google and websites run by other companies can still collect your data in the web browser's semi-private mode. The change is being made as Google prepares to settle a class-action lawsuit that accuses the firm of privacy violations related to Chrome's Incognito mode. The expanded warning was recently added to Chrome Canary, a nightly build for developers. The warning appears to directly address one of the lawsuit's complaints, that the Incognito mode's warning doesn't make it clear that Google collects data from users of the private mode.
Many tech-savvy people already know that while private modes in web browsers prevent some data from being stored on your device, they don't prevent tracking by websites or Internet service providers. But many other people may not understand exactly what Incognito mode does, so the more specific warning could help educate users. The new warning seen in Chrome Canary when you open an incognito window says: "You've gone Incognito. Others who use this device won't see your activity, so you can browse more privately. This won't change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google." The wording could be interpreted to refer to Google websites and third-party websites, including third-party websites that rely on Google ad services. The new warning was not yet in the developer, beta, and stable branches of Chrome as of today. It also wasn't in Chromium. The change to Canary was previously reported by MSPowerUser.
Incognito mode in the stable version of Chrome still says: "You've gone Incognito. Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity." Among other changes, the Canary warning replaces "browse privately" with "browse more privately." The stable and Canary warnings both say that your browsing activity might still be visible to "websites you visit," "your employer or school," or "your Internet service provider." But only the Canary warning currently includes the caveat that Incognito mode "won't change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google." The old and new warnings both say that Incognito mode prevents Chrome from saving your browsing history, cookies and site data, and information entered in forms, but that "downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved." Both warnings link to this page, which provides more detail on Incognito mode.
Many tech-savvy people already know that while private modes in web browsers prevent some data from being stored on your device, they don't prevent tracking by websites or Internet service providers. But many other people may not understand exactly what Incognito mode does, so the more specific warning could help educate users. The new warning seen in Chrome Canary when you open an incognito window says: "You've gone Incognito. Others who use this device won't see your activity, so you can browse more privately. This won't change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google." The wording could be interpreted to refer to Google websites and third-party websites, including third-party websites that rely on Google ad services. The new warning was not yet in the developer, beta, and stable branches of Chrome as of today. It also wasn't in Chromium. The change to Canary was previously reported by MSPowerUser.
Incognito mode in the stable version of Chrome still says: "You've gone Incognito. Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity." Among other changes, the Canary warning replaces "browse privately" with "browse more privately." The stable and Canary warnings both say that your browsing activity might still be visible to "websites you visit," "your employer or school," or "your Internet service provider." But only the Canary warning currently includes the caveat that Incognito mode "won't change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google." The old and new warnings both say that Incognito mode prevents Chrome from saving your browsing history, cookies and site data, and information entered in forms, but that "downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved." Both warnings link to this page, which provides more detail on Incognito mode.
Dementia Mode (Score:3)
A more accurate name would've been "Dementia Mode"
They can track you, but they just don't remember who you are if you leave and come back.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, though no real web site would use that to identify a user individually. It's really of limited usefulness nowadays especially given that multiple users will often be sharing the same IP, or your IP may change every few minutes in the case of carrier-grade NAT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dementia Mode (Score:5, Informative)
When you browse a website, you are given a number, called a cookie. Whenever the website asks your browser for your cookie, the browser responds with the number it was given when it first connected to that page. Using this number, websites can keep track of you. Usually this is for things you want, like online shopping carts, or to keep you logged in to Slashdot. Other times cookies can track you like Big Brother.
Incognito just deletes the cookies for that session the moment you close the browser. It doesn't stop your browser from accepting cookies, because that would break the functionality of a lot of websites.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's not that complicated. In the old days of Netscape I used to enabled "Ask every time" when a website wanted to leave a cookie and I'd manually approve or deny every cookie request.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome has started limiting acceptance of cookies though. For some people, 3rd party cookies are no longer accepted. For everyone, expiry dates on cookies are now ignored and Chrome deletes them after a period of inactivity.
Longer term, Chrome will do away with cookies entirely. For logging in, cryptographic tokens will be used to auto log back in instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Definition of evil.
Not Exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the key here is that some websites will use browser fingerprinting to track you.
This will use data that websites typically need to function correctly so it's not a good idea to mess with it when switching to incognito mode. Things like what fonts are available for use and so forth. Messing with some of this stuff could cause some websites to break which you don't want to happen.
And if you replace some of these factors with static lists to make it harder to differentiate incognito users, well, it also becomes easier to guess when a user is using incognito mode. Then the website can block them completely making incognito mode useless.
I suspect Google tried to have a good balance here between privacy and stealth, as well as a balance between accurately informing the user and informing the user in a way most people can understand. A court decided they did not just a bad job, but a legally liable job.
Re: (Score:1)
Ya don't say (Score:2)
https://mobile.slashdot.org/st... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
BE EVIL
Re: (Score:2)
Get sued, lose, keep doing it but add a tiny disclaimer.
They didn't get sued for tracking in incognito. They got sued for an ambiguous disclaimer about tracking in incognito. They're correcting the disclaimer.
Now do note that this is in the same day as Verizon loses their lawsuit and announces "Fuck you, you're gonna keep doing it"
They didn't lose a lawsuit. They settled it, admitting no wrong doing. If Verizon was certain they'd win, it might have gone to court instead. If the class-action was certain they'd win, it might have gone to court. It sounds like neither side was certain, and didn't want to spend the time and resources to hash it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. Even if the class-action lawyers were certain of a win, they still would take the bird in the hand, rather than the bigger one in the bush that would take years of actual work, and several appeals, to get.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't adding the disclaimer truly fix the problem, though? Apparently nontechnical users didn't understand what incognito does, so a sufficiently-well-written disclaimer ought to be able to fully correct the misunderstanding.
On the techie side, we all know that a browser setting isn't going to somehow magically keep other peoples' computers from remembering users' requests, but non-techies didn't understand that magic isn't a thing, so Google's understandably under some pressure to better-document the inc
Re: (Score:1)
Clarification (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Clarification (Score:2)
This. I switched to lynx today and I don't plan on looking back.
But more seriously, there are not a lot of alternatives for people that want a cheap phone, a correctly working web browser, and free email. Google has got most people by the short and curlies
Re: (Score:2)
I highly disagree with your sentiment here. There are tons of alternatives, available transparently and easily accessible.
* Browser alternatives: Iron, Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, Firefox - and these are all good browsers. There are many other options as well.
* Phones: past model iPhones (I'm personally using an iPhone Xs, the second one I bought since 2017 when it was new. It wasn't a great price when it was new, but it was $125 for the second one (on amazon) about 2 years ago when I accidentally spilled superg
Re: Clarification (Score:2)
Uhh my contract free pay as you go phone is $90. Brand new and not refurbished. And I'm simply thrifty and not actually broke. But a family with 3 kids and only a single working parent very well might aim for inexpensive phones for their kids since they'll be buying multiple.
Half the browsers are using the same technology behind Chrome. And some of the examples you listed have some privacy problems or invasive ads. While I will admit you can trade Google for someone that is just as bad, it doesn't seem peop
Re: Clarification (Score:2)
... But I suspect the more likely answer is that many people are unable to find viable alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Vote with your feet. Best way to avoid being racked by Google is to avoid using their products."
^^^THIS
And by also not giving them power over the Internet/Web. Top four:
* Don't use any browser based on Chromium (translation- use Firefox). Turn on blocking of third-party cookies and anti-tracking.
* Don't use google.com for searching, use something else like Startpage or DuckDuckGo
* Don't use Gmail (any more than required to activate Android, etc, if necessary. Then use something else for Email)
* Don'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"* Don't use websites that use Google analytics."
LOL! Good luck with that :)
Re: (Score:3)
you can block those requests, that isn't hard, either via extensions or via DNS
Re: (Score:2)
they will not track you if i don't use chrome and chrome based browsers, don't use google services, block google dns, use ad blockers and use noscript extension as a final protection layer.... simple and easy! :)
also, do not use windows and only good OS for phones (graphene, ubports and other open and degoogle androids... iphone doesn't count, as you can't control the OS, apple do it instead)
Incognito is a stupid name for what that mode is (Score:4, Interesting)
Wikipedia: Incognito is an English adjective meaning "in disguise", "having taken steps to conceal one's identity".
That's not what that does at all. It forgets what you do when you close the window, but it does not disguise anything you do and doesn't conceal your identity. Calling it "incognito" mode is like calling cruise control "self driving".
avoiding Feed Recommendations (Score:3)
Yeah, it's obvious this was the case.
Sometimes I want to watch a video on YouTube without YouTube thinking my whole life revolves around this new topic. Go ahead, browse a video about breadmaking or farming or restoring tools. Great, now the feed is filled with almost nothing but that sudden new passion, begging for views.
Try viewing it in incognito mode. It's still tracked back to your account, and now you have a feed full of sweater-knitting or lessons on how to pronounce 'Nguyen' or what Taurus means to Sagittarius that you didn't really want to follow.
Maybe legislate against dumb computer users (Score:1)
In other words, it's essentially useless for user privacy since everybody (except other users on your computer) can still see what you're up to.
Mostly private (Score:1)
the Canary warning replaces "browse privately" with "browse more privately."
So harmless => mostly harmless?
Do no evil (Score:1)
Disgusting and evil (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
My only issue with switching are all the stored passwords, credit card details, etc. Bookmarks can be imported, but what about all the other stuff?
Re: (Score:1)
Edge does in fact import everything. It does seem a bit flashy and busy (and some shit is linked to your microsoft Azure account - eg, credit card details, which is a PITA), but I'm going to give it a try and wean myself off the corrupt dribbling Chrome tit.