I don’t care or think they didn’t track that, they don’t ruin my algorithm with those searches which is all I really care about.
I basically just use it to look up whatever new crazy person my whack job mother was sending me some antivax propaganda from to confirm they’re the type of quack I assume them to be.
Wait… people actually think that incognito means that they don’t record your searches??
I thought everybody knew that all incognito does is preventing your searches from showing up in your search history.
Did anyone actually think that these big tech companies would willingly give you an option to keep your searches private from them?
Hello???
Always assume that everything you do online is being recorded and seen by someone. Unless you’re a master computer wiz or whatever the fuck they call it these days, ALWAYS ASSUME YOUR ACTIVITY ONLINE IS PUBLIC.
This is the consequence of wrapping everything in glossy plastics and dumbed down UI for decades. People don’t want to learn, and even if they do it’s all hidden away behind blobs and bloats.
“He’s the one who knocks!”
People mistaking incognito mode for a VPN or Tor.
Exactly. My understanding is that you use incognito mode if you don’t want the browser autofilling pornhub.com when you type po in the search bar.
Cmon if you use tor to search about cookie recipes then you are ill, Schizo
Healthy people use tor to hire hitman on their boss after boss fired them, or a hacker to doxx the jerk that downvoted them
You guys are still using Chrome?
I don’t believe for a second that they are actually going to delete any data they stole from users.
Oops offshore backup mysteriously occurred.
Of course they will! First you make a copy, then you delete the copy. Contractual terms satisfied.
UPDATE disgustingly_detailed_data SET deleted = true WHERE inkognito = true;The raw data might be purged but no one talks about the ML modal that google trained with that data.
To be fair nothing was stolen, the lawyers even admitted as much.
This is a user error problem caused by the moron in a hurry problem.
The warning on incognito mode both before and after the change was very explicit that it was local only. It was intended for people sharing a computer, not for privacy to anything you searched, external websites, etc
Below the warning even had examples over exactly what was and was not saved with it explicitly saying that external websites would be able to track and save your data including Google.
The change was to add that warning list to the initial warning itself because Google had assumed people would read the entire page. They did not.
Which means that those morons in a hurry who only skimmed misunderstood what incognito mode was for. Did not read the use case, the warning, the TOs, the manual, or any other information provided both explicitly or implicitly.
Hell even parted the argument of the lawyers was that this is a user issue and that Google had a responsibility to prevent people who were ignorant or in a hurry from misunderstanding. And while they made a good faith effort, it could have been better. Google being the large company is taking the fall for this more than anything but it is at the end of the day a user issue.
So this is why the weird shite I look up in incognito comes up when I search something without incognito mode.
Incognito was literally only good for opening a second session without you logged in. It did zero for privacy. Even their disclaimer said so.
Incognito, you mean porn mode?
Its a moot point once you sign into your Facebook account to “share with friends”
Apparently we consume porn in vastly different ways.
firefox containers are amazing for this
Firefox -p “Spanky”
Except it only keeps cookies separated, history is shared over all containers.
The Google Incognito tab in any browser clarifies that while it prevents your browsing history from being saved on your device, it does not make your browsing completely private.
Websites you visit, your employer (if on a work network), and your internet service provider (ISP) can still track your online activity.
Hell it even has a link that leads directly to the privacy policy
https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/9845881?hl=en-GB
The only thing that shocks me is that no one ever reads it
This was silently changed it used not to have the disclaimer sentence
Incognito mode (Chrome) and Private mode (Safari/Firefox) and InPrivate Browsing (Edge/IE) have had disclaimers/explanations for years, Chrome just expanded the disclaimer after settling the suit. Unfortunately for them the judge didn’t know how the internet works any better than the plaintiffs. Winding back the odometer on a car doesn’t mean toll roads don’t know you drove there, it just means “you” have no record of it.
Opera / Vivaldi offer an integrated VPN, but they’re about the only ones other than stuff like the Tor Browser.
Silently? It’s been available for developers since January 2024. Major antivirus and security websites reported on it since then, to count:
https://adguard.com/en/blog/incognito-mode-disclaimer-change.html.
It’s been widely reported at least since March 2024. It’s been well over a year since that
Hell even this meme is outdated, as the settlement is widely known since April 2024
So I wouldn’t get why freak out like after a year?
I need to check into this, but maybe someone knows.
I assumed that if you’re using incognito and you don’t sign into your Google account, the activity wouldn’t be tied to your Google account. It might be recorded and sent to Google, but anonymously, unless you signed into Google/Gmail/YouTube/whatever, while incognito.
The obvious is that your activity wouldn’t end up on your Internet history in your non-incognito Chrome.
Incognito/Private Browsing came about when people were sharing computers more often. It doesn’t save history and cookies and whatnot on your device. It’s to prevent the next user from getting in to your bank account.
Google and whoever else will still know your IP and can use that to cross-reference whatever other data they have on you.
I use private, because I am a tab hoarder
I haven’t used Chrome in years. Brave and firefox, that’s my crowd.
Next headline: Google promises to delete the Firefox private window data they keep about you
Firefox’s main funding was from Google being their default search engine. Which of course means anything searched in Google (via the URL field) is recorded to the external IP address logs. So unless you are going directly to the website or changed the search engine in Firefox, yes Google was recording said information (or at least compiling the numbers for data analytics) to use for advertising purposes.
Firefox’s main funding was
was ? I think it still is
changed the search engine in Firefox
Which… takes maximum 1min to do.
or default in any of the forks!
Which is why i don’t use safebrowsing but rather a separate profile located (
--profileswitch) in XDG_RUNTIME_DIR.I use chrome once or twice a year, when I need to figure out if a website problem is my browser or the site.
Ironically, I use incognito for that.
Brave is also Chromium.
Correct. But it is not the same.
Firefox is also a web browser.
Oh sorry, I thought we were making meaningless comparisons.
So even though Brave is made on a Google product, Google doesn’t get the data? Is that what you’re saying? Because Google is such an honest company, sure they have no interest in the data of other browser instances made with their platform. Right?
Yes. That is in fact what I’m saying. Brave has built in blockers for ads, trackers, and cookies. It has a built-in VPN. It has a built-in Tor browser. It’s default search engine is DDG instead of Google. Considering Firefox defaults to Google for searches, you’re likely giving more data to Google through Firefox than you would using Brave.
You clearly have no knowledge on how browser instances work. Just because Brave has built-in stuff like ad blockers doesn’t mean the Chromium platform isn’t Google anymore and Google has no more access to the data. No matter the extra features it has. Using Chromium means sharing data with Google.
Why would using Firefox share more data with Google than a Chromium browser, when Firefox is the only alternative to Chromium, made by a different company and not at all affiliated with Google?
I’m not supporting brave here, but do you have any evidence that the open source Chromium browser sends data to Google in any situation? The way I see it, Chromium is like android AOSP without Google apps, less functional but generally de-googled.
I can’t say I’ve reviewed every line of code in that huge project, but I’d be shocked if the rest of the open source community working on Chromium was willing to have tracking code in it or anything else which phones home to Google, even if the majority of the developers working on the open source project are Google engineers.
Ultimately, both Brave and Firefox are open source, so you can look through the code and verify for yourself whether either browser are doing something unethical.
This ungoogled-chromoim project is probably worth checking out, they maintain a patch set which explicitly removes the only things in chromium which send data to Google, which is pretty much just the web services for search bar autocomplete and DNS pre-fetching etc.
Using Chromium means sharing data with Google.
??? You retarded or something?
It does have that, but don’t for a minute think they actually control chromium. If Google wanted to they could make life very difficult for brave.
Currently brave still has support for manifest v2 but that will eventually be removed and the more brave diverges from the upstream the more work is required to keep it going.
This is gonna be awesome
Ok smartass
https://community.brave.com/t/brave-has-become-malware/510414
https://community.brave.com/t/please-ditch-crypto-adware-crap/600951
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/brave-affiliate-links-autocomplete
https://www.zdnet.com/article/brave-browser-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
source: millenial with a search engine
I really don’t have the time, or the interest, to explain it to you; but all of the things you linked are either hyperbole, misinformation, or straight up fabrications; a very small amount of digging will show you why. But hey, I don’t work for Brave or care if anyone uses it or not. At the end of the day, use whatever browser you’re comfortable with.
I really don’t have the time, or the interest, to explain it to you
Then don’t serve a check your ass can’t cash
a very small amount of digging will show you why.
Then a very smalll amount would disprove me. Until then, my point of not installing this poison still stands. Enjoy your willful ignorance. Telling me off took more effort than finding your argument lmao.
You’re doing God’s work in an abandoned universe. Also, I’ve never heard the check one. I’ll be stealing that one.
Librewolf
same i use Librewolf nowadays
You’ve gone Incognito. Others who use this device won’t see your activity, so you can browse more privately. This won’t change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google. Downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved.
- Google Chrome
Ah, good find. I just assumed it would have been explicit about it from the start
Yeah, one would have hoped that’d be the case - but apparently not.
I just remembered reading this a while back (start of last year, it seems?), and it honestly felt like a tacit admission of wrong-doing - so they’re likely going to be facing an uphill battle, or at least are expecting one.
Even before that change it’s explicit about it… The change literally did not change any part of the text that tells you who can and are going to track you. They basically went from “this isn’t real privacy” to screaming at your face cause apparently people can’t read and are idiots.
This is a case of users misusing a tool and not reading. At best you can argue that google should have assumed it’s users were stupid beyond measure from the start and had a tos so verbose that only someone missing a brain could misunderstand the point of the tool.
Man, even then it was clear what it was doing, are they supposed to list every single website you visit that might track you?
People really need to learn about VPNs and advertising ID numbers and also how your ISP is selling your activity
Um was this surprising to anyone? I think we all assumed that this was the case no???
Doesn’t it specifically say on a new incognito tab that this doesn’t protect against sites or service providers from gathering information…and only stops you from storing local information (history, cookies, etc)? Do people actually think that incognito is adding privacy protection?
That was actually a result of this issue, where Google placed misleading statements in incognito and then proceeded to actively go around them.
It actually had bullet points below the initial warning that said websites could track you.
The big warning on top was fine before. It could have been worded better and the update made its wording better. But below that warning it’s always had bullet points over examples of what it would and would not save in website tracking as well as browser data from searches could be saved. Sure, they didn’t explicitly say Google would save your data, but Google being a web browser falls under that bullet point and Google being a website falls under that bullet point. A website falls under that bullet point.
This is people not being able to understand what words mean.
Maybe I read it wrong but (to me) the meme makes it sound like Google’s taking the local data (that’s supposed to be forgotten, once you close the browser window) and sending it over to Google for them to, I dunno, run analysis on.
If they’re saying that Google sites (like YouTube, Google search, etc.) were collecting data when I visit them (as, unfortunately, sites do), then I’d say, “Well, duh;” but this makes it seem like they were exporting your local data off to their cloud which, like, they could obviously, technically do but wouldn’t very much be in the spirit of how Incognito mode was portrayed.
It has somewhat of a privacy protection because it’s incapable of keeping cookies. The bar is in hell, but it passed it.
I think the techno illiterate boomers of the fediverse are probably flabbergasted
If you care about your privacy, don’t use products from a company whose entire business model is built on invading your privacy.
