this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
658 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

62853 readers
5469 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] heyoni@lemm.ee 78 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 43 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Okay Chrome lovers, talk yourself out of this one…

[–] Toes@ani.social 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well you see, it's used by virtually everything. So get used to it. is all I imagine people saying, not my opinion.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

Ahh yes, the good ole, “you don’t have a choice” nonsense. 😉

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just like I woke up, but it was probably there for a while.

Regarding documentation… I mean, it’s Google… C’mon. I’m sure there’s lots of stuff about them spying with minimal searching (don’t use Google.com though, hahaha)

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it was probably there for a while

Nah, it might not have been. Have been dealing with federation issues that I think may only have sorted themselves out mere minutes before your comment.

I’m sure there’s lots of stuff about them spying with minimal searching

Eh, not good enough. They've got a lot of spying, but this is a specific claim. It needs to be supported by specific evidence.

It's like when people claim that Google devices are constantly recording audio and sending it back to base. Nobody has ever found evidence of it, and claims that they are are usually better explained by things like "they are recording your geolocation, and the geolocation of people you're with, and the things that the people you're with are Googling". That's enough data on its own, there's no need to reach for conspiratorial claims that lack evidence.

If there's actual evidence that the browser itself is sending tracking data back while in Incognito which links your non-incognito profile to what you're doing incognito, I'm concerned. But if it's just assumptions people are leaping to, I'm gonna go back to Occam's razor and make fewer assumptions.

[–] RayJW@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I mean if a class action lawsuit is enough documentation, then here you go: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/30/1222268415/google-settles-5-billion-privacy-lawsuit

This is actually why they implemented this new disclaimer.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Incognito mode didn't do what it was never advertised to do, and in fact does precisely what it always claimed. The horror!

I swear people like you act like every day Google simply exists is a fresh outrage.

[–] TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

All google products track you. Don’t use Google products.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Firefox's private browsing description is pretty solid if anybody managed to read it

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] uuhhhhmmmm@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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."

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I don't believe it was ever called 'private mode', or am I wrong on this?

[–] GhostMatter@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Private Mode is on Firefox.

[–] FoxBJK@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Safari and Brave also both call it a private window

[–] T156@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Internet Explorer also called it "InPrivate".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Private Browsing, for browsing private parts.

[–] Buck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] red@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

private browsing term appears in desktop and Android. Apple also uses the term.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] scrappydoo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“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

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/01/05/super-cookies-can-track-you-over-google-incognito/

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I stand corrected

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

not protecting users from tracking is very different than wantonly tracking users yourself when they literally hit the privacy button

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

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".

[–] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 15 points 1 year ago

Good to see Google finally fixing issues

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you don't want to be tracked just use LibreWolf or Tor

[–] k_rol@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd say give a try to Firefox

[–] jinwk00@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't Librewolf fork of Firefox with hardened features pre-enabled?

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It is.

You could argue that the security patches Mozilla applies takes time to be applied to Librewolf, and also that all you need to do in Firefox is change a couple of options in the settings. People debate over which one matters more, having better privacy defaults or being extremely quick to patch exploits.

In the real world I imagine it hardly matters.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

LibreWolf is just Firefox but better and Tor is Firefox but maximum privacy

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Never personally used it but seems nice

[–] RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can’t remember the last time I used Google Chrome.

Nothing but Firefox and a Linux chromium browser.

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately I have it installed to double-check things and occasional compatibility purpose. Believe it or not, sites have started to appear who work in Chrome but not Firefox. Solution is most likely perfectly simple but developers just don't want to deal with it so I've been told "just use Chrome" few times in past few years.

[–] RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep. There’s the occasional rare site that demands chrome. That’s when chromium comes in handy. I can’t think of a single site I use that I’m willing to install chrome for. Your needs are different, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Firefox's InPrivate mode is the exact same feature.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Talk about easy way out. "There, problem solved. It's not a violation if we write it somewhere in tiny font."

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Loce@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Every day I'm more glad I've got rid of that spyware browser-wannabe called Chrome.

load more comments
view more: next ›