[amelius]

The author was deliberately trying to use incognito mode to view the paywalled content, so this is imho rightfully called an intrusion attempt.

Of course, if you're just using incognito mode normally and happened to visit the same page, then it is not an intrusion attempt but just incognito browsing.

The whole point is that news websites can't distinguish between the two.

[FabHK]

I am deliberately using incognito by default (eg now), and if websites don't want to give me their content without tracking me then they should properly paywall their content and ask me to log in - then we both understand what's going on.

Frankly, considering this an intrusion attempt reveals a crazy, completely warped mindset: "We will track you, we want to know exactly who you are and what you read and how long, and if you attempt to evade this surveillance, you are an intruder!"

I use unique emails when signing up for websites - is that intrusion, too?

[basch]

I would think incognito would make it easier to track, if your session persists until you close incognito. Youd be much better off with umatrix blocking cookies and javascript.

[Dylan16807]

It's equivalent to wiping your cookies. Going to a blank slate is definitely not an intrusion attempt.

[raverbashing]

So is their server intruding onto my computer when they set cookies without my permission?

[JustSomeNobody]

I wonder if he broke the CFA in doing so. Trying to access a computer in order to commit an act to defraud or some such nonsense.