So this is why the weird shite I look up in incognito comes up when I search something without incognito mode.
I don’t care or think they didn’t track that, they don’t ruin my algorithm with those searches which is all I really care about.
I basically just use it to look up whatever new crazy person my whack job mother was sending me some antivax propaganda from to confirm they’re the type of quack I assume them to be.
“He’s the one who knocks!”
Incognito was never about privacy. It’s about hiding your seach history from your parents or partner or whatever
For buying gifts, for example.
Or masturbating to pornography
Or buying pornography.
Or pornographic gifts.
“Ma’am, I heard it’s your birthday, so I brought this giant package…”
That’s adorable.
and i’m pretty sure the browsers have been quite explicit about this for a long time now, but of course no one bothers to read “This won’t change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google.”
It’s as far as I remember literally always said it’s basically just turning off local history, and not for true privacy. The wording has changed over the years and frankly only become more explicated and clear about that fact.
This is a rare case of google NOT being the problem here. People are misusing a tool that has always been honest about itself.
Google wasn’t really explicit about that until the lawsuit.
I don’t believe for a second that they are actually going to delete any data they stole from users.
Oops offshore backup mysteriously occurred.
Of course they will! First you make a copy, then you delete the copy. Contractual terms satisfied.
The raw data might be purged but no one talks about the ML modal that google trained with that data.
UPDATE disgustingly_detailed_data SET deleted = true WHERE inkognito = true;To be fair nothing was stolen, the lawyers even admitted as much.
This is a user error problem caused by the moron in a hurry problem.
The warning on incognito mode both before and after the change was very explicit that it was local only. It was intended for people sharing a computer, not for privacy to anything you searched, external websites, etc
Below the warning even had examples over exactly what was and was not saved with it explicitly saying that external websites would be able to track and save your data including Google.
The change was to add that warning list to the initial warning itself because Google had assumed people would read the entire page. They did not.
Which means that those morons in a hurry who only skimmed misunderstood what incognito mode was for. Did not read the use case, the warning, the TOs, the manual, or any other information provided both explicitly or implicitly.
Hell even parted the argument of the lawyers was that this is a user issue and that Google had a responsibility to prevent people who were ignorant or in a hurry from misunderstanding. And while they made a good faith effort, it could have been better. Google being the large company is taking the fall for this more than anything but it is at the end of the day a user issue.
Incognito was literally only good for opening a second session without you logged in. It did zero for privacy. Even their disclaimer said so.
Incognito, you mean porn mode?
Its a moot point once you sign into your Facebook account to “share with friends”
Apparently we consume porn in vastly different ways.
firefox containers are amazing for this
Firefox -p “Spanky”
Except it only keeps cookies separated, history is shared over all containers.
Incognito/Private Browsing came about when people were sharing computers more often. It doesn’t save history and cookies and whatnot on your device. It’s to prevent the next user from getting in to your bank account.
Google and whoever else will still know your IP and can use that to cross-reference whatever other data they have on you.
I use private, because I am a tab hoarder
You guys are still using Chrome?
Incognito mode was always just to hide your local browser history. Think Google would NOT track you?
Do you have Google maps? They know where you are at all times.
User visits Google (logged in)
User visits Google, without cookies, but from the same IP, same user agent, same resolution, same OS, same enabled plugins, same browser version number, same fingerprint (based on al the previous information).
Google, who could this possibly be???
You mean…they know I typed “boobs” into the search bar that one time!? NOOOO!!
Do you have a phone? They know where your toilet is
The know when I’m in a theatre and automatically mute my phone. Admittedly convenient, but also super creepy
I’ve never had this happen. I need to NOT mute my phone next time and test!
Do you have
Google maps?ANY UNMODIFIED GOOGLE CODE OR ANDROID PHONE, TABLET OR CHROMEBOOK IN THE HISTORY OF FOREVER?Then they know where you are at all times. I bet the Pixel users get gold stars. Oneplus have little pluses and custom rom users have 👀.
Oh no! Anyway
Naming it incognito was a mistake. It was always clear to me all incognito is, is a non persistent container to keep your browsing data separate from your regular browsing data. All its hiding is your porn browsing habits from your mom. But of course, the name implies much more.
Not a mistake, intentionally deceptive
Good for testing instead of “clearing cache and cookies”
There were memes about this what feels like at least 10 years ago. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.
Some ones been caught with his pants down 😏
from your mom
…did your parents not have friends set up packet sniffers?
“Hey, so now that Chrome has been released, we’re gonna fly up to visit your son and install a packet sniffer on his network!”
Your parents seriously didnt do that, though?
I’m just gently teasing you because I was 29 years old when Chrome came out. My parents would never have even thought to ask someone to install something like that when the internet first came out.
hey before they do that, can i look through their files on me? theres some porn i havent been able to refind anywhere
Wouldn’t that be amazing! I have single frames of good videos stuck in my head that I can never find again.
There is a r/tipofmypenis for that
Maybe someone knows a Lemmy alternative
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. Downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved.
- Google Chrome
Ah, good find. I just assumed it would have been explicit about it from the start
Yeah, one would have hoped that’d be the case - but apparently not.
I just remembered reading this a while back (start of last year, it seems?), and it honestly felt like a tacit admission of wrong-doing - so they’re likely going to be facing an uphill battle, or at least are expecting one.
Even before that change it’s explicit about it… The change literally did not change any part of the text that tells you who can and are going to track you. They basically went from “this isn’t real privacy” to screaming at your face cause apparently people can’t read and are idiots.
This is a case of users misusing a tool and not reading. At best you can argue that google should have assumed it’s users were stupid beyond measure from the start and had a tos so verbose that only someone missing a brain could misunderstand the point of the tool.
Man, even then it was clear what it was doing, are they supposed to list every single website you visit that might track you?
Um was this surprising to anyone? I think we all assumed that this was the case no???
Doesn’t it specifically say on a new incognito tab that this doesn’t protect against sites or service providers from gathering information…and only stops you from storing local information (history, cookies, etc)? Do people actually think that incognito is adding privacy protection?
That was actually a result of this issue, where Google placed misleading statements in incognito and then proceeded to actively go around them.
It actually had bullet points below the initial warning that said websites could track you.
The big warning on top was fine before. It could have been worded better and the update made its wording better. But below that warning it’s always had bullet points over examples of what it would and would not save in website tracking as well as browser data from searches could be saved. Sure, they didn’t explicitly say Google would save your data, but Google being a web browser falls under that bullet point and Google being a website falls under that bullet point. A website falls under that bullet point.
This is people not being able to understand what words mean.
It has somewhat of a privacy protection because it’s incapable of keeping cookies. The bar is in hell, but it passed it.
Maybe I read it wrong but (to me) the meme makes it sound like Google’s taking the local data (that’s supposed to be forgotten, once you close the browser window) and sending it over to Google for them to, I dunno, run analysis on.
If they’re saying that Google sites (like YouTube, Google search, etc.) were collecting data when I visit them (as, unfortunately, sites do), then I’d say, “Well, duh;” but this makes it seem like they were exporting your local data off to their cloud which, like, they could obviously, technically do but wouldn’t very much be in the spirit of how Incognito mode was portrayed.
I think the techno illiterate boomers of the fediverse are probably flabbergasted
wtf was anyone expecting
If anyone thought that Incognito somehow protected their data from websites or services, then that’s their fault for jumping to that conclusion in the face of everything saying that’s not the case.
Also…
In lawsuits settlement
In meme sentence, words disappear.
That was actually their lawyer’s argument, that “incognito mode” being private was just something people assumed and ran with, not their fault.
I mean, they called it “Incognito”.
Incognito: having one’s true identity concealed
If it doesn’t conceal your identity, then that’s pretty clearly misleading. They’re not selling to experts, the users of this are laypeople. It’s like if you sold a “waterproof phone” and the packaging all made it look like it could withstand water, but then when it got wet it broke and you were like “people just assumed it was waterproof, it’s not our fault”.
Sure experts could tell, and enthusiasts would read the expert opinions on it, but that’s not something you should expect of laypeople considering how it is presented.It IS local incognito. By definition the name is accurate.
The wording on the warning both BEFORE AND AFTER the change says explicitly websites you visit, and anything external WILL still record and track you.
It said BEFORE AND AFTER that ONLY local things such as history omor cookies arnt saved.
It is 100% incognito. For the local browser. It warms BEFORE AND AFTER that it’s not real privacy.
They changed the wording basically from an assumption people will read the examples given on the SAME page as the warning. To having the examples built into the warning.
Basically they assumed their users could read. They were wrong, people can’t read. So they have to scream it now.
“local Incognito” is some real mental gymnastics. If the witness protection program told people they’d help them go incognito, but only hid them from their own families and made it easy for strangers and enemies to find them, would you really consider that be what a reasonable interpretation?
Stop defending people who use shit like huge ToS docs and dark patterns to weasel out of deceptive marketing
Well yeah, that’s the only possible argument that the lawyer could even have.
