[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.