[hojjat12000]

Because "incognito mode" is not about tracking! It is about saving information on your local machine. If you are in incognito mode and log into Gmail, you will see your own email! You are not incognito to Gmail. It used to be called "porn mode". I think that's a better name for incognito. It is there to stop others who use your computer to spy on you. Ofcourse you can use incognito (assuming you don't log into anything) and be reasonably anonymous (there are many other things that can track you even in incognito). I think it just need a rebranding. I vote "porn mode".

[dfox]

“Porn mode” is bad name for the thing because for the typical porn use case the user actually wants the persistent persistent browser state (eg. so that pornhub’s “Recommended for you” shows relevant content) and only wants it to be disconnected from their non-porn online activity.

[hojjat12000]

You can still log into the porn website and watch your recommended videos. But after you close that window, no history of that ever happening is stored on your local machine. No urls, history, or cookies.

[blacksmith_tb]

I suspect "no-history-mode" would be an easier sell. It would certainly explain a little better what's going on, but clearly lots of folks wouldn't still understand that the 'history' is only on their end. "I wanted no history of what I was doing anywhere!" Use Firefox+uBlock, or Tor, or...

[sixothree]

My problem here is google's attempt to correlate incognito users to their non-incognito history.

The intent of the user is clear.

[charcircuit]

>My problem here is google's attempt to correlate incognito users to their non-incognito history.

To a web server incognito mode isn't a thing. It's a client only thing. You don't know if a user is using incognito mode, or if they just cleared their cookies / cache. There's no way to know the user's intent.

[nitrogen]

And this is by design (even though it's actually detectable -- try watching Netflix or Amazon, or any similar DRMed content, in incognito mode), because telling the server "hey, I'm in incognito mode" is antithetical to the goal of seeming to blend in.

But I still see a problem with Google's control of both sides of the connection, and with fingerprinting in general.

[grahamburger]

In your view should Google not allow people to log in to Gmail while in incognito mode? How can someone remain untracked by Google while in incognito mode but also interact with personalized Google services, like email?

[GavinMcG]

By logging into one's account. Surely you see the distinction between deliberately availing oneself of a service and bring tracked on entirely separate websites without being informed, much less consenting.

[grahamburger]

You're making an argument against tracking in general. That's fine, but it's not what we're discussing. What we're discussing is if sites should treat traffic from browsers in incognito mode differently than traffic from browsers not in incognito mode. Do you think they should? I would argue that sites shouldn't even know whether or not their users are in incognito mode.

[pyrale]

> Because "incognito mode" is not about tracking! It is about saving information on your local machine.

Expecting laypeople to understand that distinction is probably a bit optimistic.

[xiphias2]

Porn mode is also about companies and governments finding out information that they can use to blackmail you.