It is what it is

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.

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

fight back?

No thats because of the dream monitoring. Don't be silly.

"He's the one who knocks!"

For buying gifts, for example.

and i'm pretty sure the browsers have been quite explicit about this for a long time now, but of course no one bothers to read "This won't change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google."

Oops offshore backup mysteriously occurred.

Of course they will! First you make a copy, then you delete the copy. Contractual terms satisfied.

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.

Incognito, you mean porn mode?

firefox containers are amazing for this

I use private, because I am a tab hoarder

Do you have a phone? They know where your toilet is

User visits Google (logged in)

User visits Google, without cookies, but from the same IP, same user agent, same resolution, same OS, same enabled plugins, same browser version number, same fingerprint (based on al the previous information).

Google, who could this possibly be???

Do you have Google maps? ANY UNMODIFIED GOOGLE CODE OR ANDROID PHONE, TABLET OR CHROMEBOOK IN THE HISTORY OF FOREVER?

Then they know where you are at all times. I bet the Pixel users get gold stars. Oneplus have little pluses and custom rom users have 👀.

Good for testing instead of "clearing cache and cookies"

Not a mistake, intentionally deceptive

There were memes about this what feels like at least 10 years ago. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.

from your mom

...did your parents not have friends set up packet sniffers?

Some ones been caught with his pants down 😏

Wouldn't that be amazing! I have single frames of good videos stuck in my head that I can never find again.

There is a r/tipofmypenis for that

Maybe someone knows a Lemmy alternative

Google quietly updates Chrome’s incognito warning in wake of tracking lawsuit

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?

I think the techno illiterate boomers of the fediverse are probably flabbergasted

That was actually their lawyer's argument, that "incognito mode" being private was just something people assumed and ran with, not their fault.

Brave is also Chromium.

Next headline: Google promises to delete the Firefox private window data they keep about you

Which is why i don't use safebrowsing but rather a separate profile located (--profile switch) in XDG_RUNTIME_DIR.

Librewolf

same i use Librewolf nowadays

I use chrome once or twice a year, when I need to figure out if a website problem is my browser or the site.

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.

This was silently changed it used not to have the disclaimer sentence

This doesn’t change much if you use Google’s browser

I spell it all the time even using no fingers at all!

Zelensky is that you?!

It doesn’t even do that. All it does is prevent persistent data from being stored from the browsing session (so, no disk cache or browsing history).

From day one it is explicitly said it doesn't do that. It's literally always been on the main blank tab page right below the warning over what it does.

How they even had to update the wording because of all of this because people didn't bother to read three bullet points

I use it to access the same site with different logins at the same time, or to let someone else log in to a service temporarily using my device

That's literally the only time I've ever used it. Knowing what it is, I don't even need it. I have the settings set to erase all my history and most other stuff upon closing the browser. Which is exactly what incognito mode does, but temporarily for a single tab session.

It's great for testing a site when you're not sure whether the issue is because you're logged in or there's some cached data.

That's called victim blaming.

But yeah. I really hope people stop using Google products. Google is evil.

Putting the burden on users is a very Google thing to do, my dude.

That's simply not true. People can't be expected to know what's going on under the hood of services designed specifically to simplify things for non-technical users and conceal what's under the hood.

No, not really. There are low bars; this isn't one of them. This is not something I expect average people who aren't into technology to anticipate. Nerds like me, yeah. But not the public. Though we're getting to that point.