[jeroenhd]

While I'll gladly criticise Google when they introduce yet more privacy invasion, this lawsuit is a stupid money grab and I hope Google wins this fight.

The entire lawsuit revolves around the idea that incognito ("private") browsing somehow implies that users aren't tracked at all, despite a clear, front-and-center warning that they still might be whenever you use it, purely based on the name alone.

Someone saw that law makers were going after big tech and wanted in on the action. This lawsuit servers nothing but the lawyers. If Google loses this, ANY name that COULD be ambiguous could become grounds for a lawsuit for billions despite all warnings you might add to software.

[ewzimm]

Next in line is Microsoft because the transparency effects in the upcoming Windows 11 do not actually make computer screens transparent as one might expect from windows.

The focus seems to be the idea that Google knew about misconceptions and did not adequately address them, even with the prominent disclaimer. It seems like an arbitrary focus because there are so many other ways users misunderstand computers. I would think that EULAs would be a better target. Legislation requiring simpler summaries along the lines of Creative Commons licences would go a long way toward better informed users.

[estebarb]

Let's sue the USA? It's name implies that the states are united, but Hawaii and Alaska are not adjacent to the other states.

[pg_1234]

Rubbish ... it's quite simple and and the criticism is totally reasonable.

One single business (Google) promised the users anonymity on the client-side ... that same single business (Google) then broke that promise when their server-side tech worked around it.

They LIED and should be punished.

--------------------------------------------

edit: I see people don't seem to have a counter argument and are just down-voting an uncomfortable truth ;-)

[whoknowswhat11]

Can anyone actually point to this supposed promise.

The only incognito mode I've seen comes with an explicit DISCLAIMER that you WILL probably be tracked by the websites you visit, the ISP you use etc.

The terms for using Chrome are pretty clear, as are youtube / gmail etc.

[ipaddr]

The wording is: 'these activities might be visible' to websites. But that is a lie. They are visible.

[deepfriedrice]

It's actually:

Your activity might still be visible to: * Websites you visit * Your employer or school * Your internet service provider

"might" makes sense because some or none of those may apply, depending on how you're using the browser.

[justapassenger]

As someone technical, I agree. Especially with a bit that it’ll serve mostly lawyers. But I won’t be surprised if Google loses this lawsuit.

If you aren’t technical and understand difference between client and server, you may not know that while using one Google product, that claims to be incognito, other Google products are still tracking you. That’s how internet is designed to work, but when one company controls clients and servers, it can get confusing to a general public.

[estebarb]

It doesn't make sense at all. When I'm driving a car, let's say a Toyota, I expect that the car would protect me from its own failures (like: alerting me of oil or battery issues). But no way I would expect the car to avoid collisions with other Toyotas just because those are made by the same company.

The same argument could apply to firearms (shouldn't harm the holder, so the same firearm model shouldn't hurt other holders of the same firearm model?) and a lot of things.

[a5aAqU]

Those analogies don't fit. Collisions between cars have nothing to do with the intention of Toyota. Toyota isn't in the business of causing cars to crash. Firearm manufacturers aren't really in the business of encouraging civilian gun users to shoot each other.

Google's fundamental business model involves tracking people, so if you use one of their features that supposedly turns off tracking, it would be natural to assume that Google would stop all tracking.

[sorokod]

You also wouldn't expect Toyota to make cars that would actively seek to colide with yours.

[fsckboy]

> other Google products are still tracking you. That’s how internet is designed to work

The internet was not designed to track us. Unfortunately, we've allowed it to happen.

[NicoJuicy]

If you don't disclose your name at the hotel ( eg. Go incognito)

That doesn't mean they can't track you when you steal something. You are not unidentifiable.

[a5aAqU]

Surfing the Web anonymously isn't a crime.

[NicoJuicy]

I never suggested that. It's about incognito mode like the title of the article.

[salawat]

As someone technical I disagree.

I go out of my way not to use suggestive names like incognito because for the non-technical, it creates an expectation that will be relied upon by those that do not have the background understand what they are reading. "History-less", "local self-clean", "non-caching"... All of these names are accurate and far less suggestive than incognito. Incognito, like it or not, evokes the expectation that the browser is doing something to frustrate monitoring by other parties.

Here be the wrath of the non-technical masses, and why the "luser" attitude is the most destructive, anti-social, and regressive attitude in tech.

Our goal should be simplification of computing. Not the unceasing obfuscation and complexifying of it in some misguided attempt to create job security. I sincerely hope Google loses. Hard. It's about damn time that the tech industry be held to a higher standard.

[jeroenhd]

I agree that labeling should be simple and easy to understand, but people aren't going to understand "non-caching". They don't know what a cache is, other than that websites keep telling them to clear it. "Local self-clean" tells me absolutely nothing, other than that I can maybe use it to blow dust out of my PC.

Google needed a name that fits on a button, translates easily and is recognisable. That's why we're using "browsers" instead of "HTML5 user agents", why we use "windows" instead of "top level control elements" and "sleep mode" instead of "ACPI power state S3". Using technically correct terms for the general public is exactly why people prefer dumbed down smartphones over complex traditional software.

Since its inception, private mode has shown a screen that describes what it does or doesn't do whenever you open it. Had Google omitted that, and directed private mode directly to the user's home page, then perhaps I'd agree with you. In this case, I believe Google did the best they could to balance a technically correct explanation with something that's understandable by normal people and children.

You can't blame everything on "the user shouldn't have to know better". An automatic gearbox won't put itself into reverse when you want it, but it's still called automatic. A juicer won't turn a spoon into metal juice. A vacuum cleaner won't work in a vacuum. All of this is perfectly logical if you're used to the context things are used in, but that context obviously doesn't need to be part of most products' naming.

Misunderstanding naming and terminology is a sign that things need better explanations, but not the basis for a lawsuit in my opinion.

[zamfi]

> Incognito, like it or not, evokes the expectation that the browser is doing something to frustrate monitoring by other parties.

And it does this: cookies are not shared or stored past the session, etc.

The issue is that some tracking can still be accomplished by websites, even while other tracking is stymied.

What do you call this?

[stan_rogers]

A lie by omission.

[colejohnson66]

Where’s the omission? On the incognito home page it mentions that websites can still track you

[mindslight]

I agree. There would be no issue if these were two separate companies - Google Inc (et al) would be doing their best to surveil you, while Chrome Inc would be doing their best to keep you safe from the prevailing conditions. But since it's a single entity offering you privacy and then doing the exact opposite behind the scenes, it's fraudulent. Understanding the technical details for how it works out the way it does just creates a blind spot where you miss the big picture, which is how Google managed to get themselves into this situation.

[oasisbob]

Non-caching isn't accurate either though, as the story about the man who found portions of an incognito view cached and displayed when he opened a game in front of other family members makes clear.

IIRC, this was not considered a bug.

[makomk]

Not only that, there's not really any way Google could avoid tracking people who're using Incognito mode, because that would require telling websites that Incognito mode is in use - which itself is a privacy issue and any method of detecting this ends up being widely abused to try and foce people not to use it. I can't imagine that letting Google and only Google have access to this information would go down any better.

[tedivm]

In theory Google could send the Do Not Track header to notify people they shouldn't track, but very few sites honor that (and Google Analytics certainly doesn't).

[sofixa]

Why should it, it doesn't "track" you, it only notes vague details and aggregates visitor statistics.

[orangecat]

And in practice it's just another bit of entropy to identify you.

[Dylan16807]

If everyone in incognito sends that, it's probably very close to 0 bits.

[hiptobecubic]

"Incognito" isn't even that suggestive of a name. Compare that with e.g "Full Self Driving."

If I go to a party incognito, I don't expect to leave no physical trace of my presence.

[a5aAqU]

> If I go to a party incognito, I don't expect to leave no physical trace of my presence.

It's more like going to a party hosted by someone who makes a living by tracking you, where you were told that you are going to be incognito. But secretly, behind the scenes, you're still being tracked by the host of the party using a different technique.

[whoknowswhat11]

Doesn't incognito mode warn you that you will be tracked.

I always understood it to be about avoiding leaving details of your browsing on a shared computer.

How does google block your ISP / website from doing their usual stuff (ie, google analytics etc).

[a5aAqU]

> Doesn't incognito mode warn you that you will be tracked.

It says some websites "might" track you. It doesn't let you know that Google itself is going to track you.

[whoknowswhat11]

Yeah, this stuff is so annoying. And then you have Reuters writing these type of clickbait headlines.

When google sticks their BIG warning on incongnito EVERY time you launch it I thought that was silly. I guess not.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Yeah the big screen makes it really clear. Everything is described as it is. The only stupid thing is the name, it should be called a "don't-save-my-history" (or "no-history") mode as incognito means something completely different.

[dragonwriter]

“Incognito” is fairly accurate, since identifying cookies, etc., stored in the “main” browser aren't sent to sites.

[a5aAqU]

> The entire lawsuit revolves around the idea that incognito ("private") browsing somehow implies that users aren't tracked at all, despite a clear, front-and-center warning that they still might be whenever you use it, purely based on the name alone.

One problem is that Google's Incognito Mode says this:

> You’ve gone Incognito ... Your activity might still be visible to: Websites you visit, Your employer or school, Your internet service provider

It isn't some ambiguous "websites" that are tracking you in Incognito Mode, Google is tracking you on those websites (Google Analytics, etc.) and providing some of that data to the website owners. Users don't understand how the Internet works, and it's misleading for Google to imply that it's only someone else that is doing the tracking.

[Consultant32452]

I'm reminded of when the makers of Vitamin water argued in court that no reasonable person could interpret the name to mean that the drink is healthy, as opposed to the sugary drink that it really is.

[bubblethink]

While the technical merits are pretty weak, the central issue is that both Chrome and Google analytics or other ad-tech things are made by Google. So, if nothing else, a good outcome of the lawsuit would be to for Google to expand their standard incognito disclaimer to include that "Google" may track them. You may argue that everything includes Google, but the distinction is useful because Chrome is made by Google.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

Where does Googles money come from. Advertising budgets. Do advertisers get upset that Google is getting sued for misleading consumers. Perhaps the advertisers are wondering how Google might be misleading them (advertisers), too. Others might see Google's surveillance "business" as a "money grab". Its founders originally said that Google not fall victim to the influence of advertising. In the ultimate display of anti-integrity, they did the exact opposite and sold out 110%. Generally, consumers have not paid Google for anything and would have no reason to feel like lawyers are making a "money grab" to take a cut of such payments. Quite the contrary. Even a "money grab" by lawyers at Google's expense could be the closest thing to "justice" that consumers will ever get. Thats because discovery in these lawsuits often reveals bit by bit what goes on behind the scenes at Google. It is undisputed that the public wants to know how their data is being collected and what is being done with it. Discovery in any litigation, "money grab" or otherwise, is how they are learning the truth. Money grab, indeed. If "Big Tech" isn't a "stupid money grab", I don't know what is.

[antattack]

"Incognito" is a very misleading name for this feature.

from Google’s English dictionary:

adjective adjective: incognito

    (of a person) having one's true identity concealed.

adverb adverb: incognito

    in a way that conceals one's true identity.

noun noun: incognito; plural noun: incognitos

    an assumed or false identity.

[thebraxton]

Would anti-slapp help in this case if the allegations are obviously false?

[randomsearch]

"Tesla Autopilot"