Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

dylan604

No, it is not. They clearly tell you this when you switch to Icognito mode.

View on HN

I just love modern day marketing:

* unlimited: not actually unlimited

* Full self driving: not actually fully self driving

* incognito: not even trying to be incognito

As long as you have a paragraph explaining it you could bottle piss and sell it as fresh spring water.

But its the everydays Joe's fault for not knowing exactly how and when proffesionals with a phD and decades experience are misleading him

Complex things are rarely accurately defined in a word or two.

But it would have been fairly easy to not use words with opposite meaning of what you mean?

When I ask my laweyer how to avoid jail, he also makes sure to mislead me as much as possible with various gotchas that 'everyone should know'

1984 has become reality (most predictions in the book), we need a new goal.

https://www.planetebook.com/1984/

I really don't understand the confusion.

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.

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".

That Google is tracking everything you do on the browser is the problem here, not incognito.

I as a technical user know that the assumption is wrong, and that to achieve the desired properties one needs something like the Tor Browser.

But it is still reasonable to make that assumption.

Chrome benefits from its association with Google. This means that Google should also deal with the consequences of that association.

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?

> What specifically do you argue Google should have done here?

Google should stop tracking users when they’re in incognito mode.

Yeah, you’ve hit the nail on the head.

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.

In that case, Chrome should lose all Google branding.

I'm sick of megacorps reaping all the benefits of branding but none of the downsides.

It’s crazy how we’ve gotten to the point where a clear and ethical implementation of privacy features is now seen as “strange”

Incognito mode is a standard browser feature, there is no reason to believe that Googles browser would work differently than others browsers. Safari calls it "Private Browsing", should that also be illegal since Apple still tracks you on websites you visit even if you have it on? It is insane to assume that every company that has a browser with this feature would sync it with all their website to disable tracking when it is on.

And often times that wouldn't even be what you want. Often you go incognito to log into another account because it creates a fresh browser instance. Doing that would be impossible if it didn't enable any form of tracking, logging in requires them to track you. Making a sensible way where incognito somehow prevented all tracking while still being functional isn't possible.

I didn't imply that a clear and ethical implementation of privacy features (or "tracking users" as what you were previously referring to) in general is now seen as strange; My point is why would should that implementation of not tracking users only apply to Google? Having it only apply to Google and its services would be strange, and just as confusing to users as the current situation you're expressing frustration about.

In your model are you satisfied with Google still applying its tracking techniques to Microsoft Edge users in Microsoft's incognito mode?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com