> It is reasonable to assume that you won't be tracked by Google when you're incognito in Google's browser.
Given the existing functionality of incognito mode, what would you call its set of features that it provides? Is it a naming / branding issue?
I believe it should be possible to provide these set of features (or browser operating mode) without going to the extent of not being tracked by Google (the company and its services), even though the ability to do the latter seamlessly would be beneficial.
* Chrome sends a signal to google.com around not tracking in incognito mode (Chrome already does all sorts of magic on Google sites, this would be a small addition)
* Incognito mode has a clear warning that Google specifically will keep tracking you
1. So you're saying only Google is the publisher that specifically gets notified when you use incognito mode. That actually would be a real, concerning privacy violation in my opinion.
2. But the whole point is that it is not just Google who "specifically keeps tracking you". It's any server software out there that keeps logs. The warning Incognito Mode has now is much more correct and accurate that some sort of "Google specific" one would be.
3. That's just dumb. It's a Google product, why shouldn't it have Google branding.
Setting browser to incognito means the browser doesn't recognize who you are and doesn't announce that to sites. The rest of your examples are just scams, but browser example has a reasonable interpretation. There is no reasonable interpretation where "unlimited" means 20 GB a month, or "Full Self Driving" means "You have to be as focused on the road and have your hands on the wheel at every second as this isn't legally self driving".
Incognito prevents the browser from remembering the things you do locally to the browser itself. The browser, any browser, cannot control what the server does. The browser cannot block whatever javascript you have allowed it to run. All it can do is block javascript. You log into a server while in Incognito doesn't mean the server won't know you logged in (wtf?).
Icognito basically means your SO won't see your browser history, and that's about it.
What specifically do you argue Google should have done here? I can’t think of a name that could describe the feature without potentially misleading people who don’t understand it; the fundamental problem is that people don’t realize there’s a difference between “privacy from other people on my computer” and “privacy from other sites on the Internet”. Should they have just refused to build a privacy mode at all because they can’t provide all forms of privacy?
The idea you can be in Google Browsers private browsing mode that says Google Browser won’t track you but in reality Google will still track you in that mode given the chance is a huge piece of slight of hand for the average users.
> Google should stop tracking users when they’re in incognito mode.
Google (the Chrome development team) should not track users when they're in incognito mode if they even do.
However, Google (the company and its services) should not care whether a user is using incognito mode or not; Otherwise you're asking for the implementation of additional functionality beyond what incognito mode is intended to provide (ala DNT, etc), and making it specific to only Google, and not other websites, would be a strange position.
At the very least, say something like "Websites, including Google, will keep tracking you". The existing text isn't nearly as explicit about the fact that Google will keep tracking you as it should be.
Absurd how this is getting downvoted when the obvious assumption by non-technical users is that if “Chrome” isn’t tracking you then “Google” isn’t tracking either. And the the simple fact is that Google shouldn’t track you if you’re using incognito mode on its browser.
> And the the simple fact is that Google shouldn’t track you if you’re using incognito mode on its browser.
What is absurd is seeking a remedy where Google is compelled to further couple their ecosystem so that now only Chrome users are exempt from server-side tracking, but Firefox Private Browsing or Edge InPrivate continue to be server-side tracked, because these plaintiffs suddenly understand how private browsing works when the browser doesn't say "Google Chrome" on it.
It's a cash grab. If they wanted a remedy where a user truly had control over their privacy and could turn off server-side tracking at the flick of a client-side switch, they'd lobby for privacy-positive legislation. They just see easy money here because they think they can confuse the courts into a muddled make-believe interpretation of how webservers and user agents work.
Given the existing functionality of incognito mode, what would you call its set of features that it provides? Is it a naming / branding issue?
I believe it should be possible to provide these set of features (or browser operating mode) without going to the extent of not being tracked by Google (the company and its services), even though the ability to do the latter seamlessly would be beneficial.