Forget using incognito mode, you should invest in a VPN instead

Google admits Chrome Incognito mode tracks users — what you need to know::Google is adding new disclaimers to Chrome after the search giant settled a class-action lawsuit regarding how incognito mode isn’t actually as private as it appears to be.

  • fubo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    684·
    11 months ago

    Even though going incognito prevents Chrome from saving cookies, site data and your browsing history, it doesn’t actually prevent websites or your internet service provider (ISP) from tracking you and knowing what you’re up to online. This news comes as a shock to many Chrome users but privacy experts have long warned that the browser’s incognito mode isn’t as private as you might think.

    Know where else you’ll find that same warning?

    On every new incognito window in Chrome.

    It’s been there for years —

    Your activity might still be visible to:

    • Websites you visit
    • Your employer or school
    • Your internet service provider
    • ALQ@lemmy.worldEnglish
      321·
      11 months ago

      Yeah…I feel like the only reason to use incognito has always been “I don’t want my porn to show up in my search history and this is easier than manual deletion.” It’d be nice if it meant privacy, but the world doesn’t run on nice. :(

      • fubo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        11 months ago

        Also, TCP/IP requires that the server receive your IP address (or that of a proxy, VPN endpoint, etc.) so that it can send the response back. Opening a new browser window doesn’t change that.

      • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        111·
        11 months ago

        Well remember they just got rid of the 🔒 icon because too many people thought it meant the site was safe.

        • tsonfeir@lemm.eeEnglish
          81·
          11 months ago

          All that https effort and they gave up the lock? Dang. Google kills everything.

          • Spotlight7573@lemmy.worldEnglish
            6·
            11 months ago

            It’s because of that https effort. Everything should be assumed to be https and only http or misconfigured/bad https gets a warning. No need to show a lock when it can be assumed and it was getting misinterpreted. Now they can use that spot to show something indicating controls and someone might actually click on it and see they can set site specific permissions and settings there.

          • fubo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            6·
            11 months ago

            Fortunately, they also killed the mindbogglingly stupid idea of forcibly hiding https:// in the address bar. (It may be off by default, but you can turn it on.)

      • krimson@feddit.nlEnglish
        613·
        11 months ago

        Hating on big tech is the new thing in 2024 I think. I’m not a fan either but this article is just stupid.

        • remotelove@lemmy.caEnglish
          5·
          11 months ago

          Hating on big tech has probably been a thing since the creation of the abacus.

          Being honest about products would be a great start. I would probably be totally cool with some of the shit they do if they weren’t deceptive about it, Chrome being a great example.

          The article isn’t that bad either. It’s at a novice level, but it’s not horrible.

    • Dragonish7767@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      151·
      11 months ago

      Yeah I’m no fan of googles sketchy privacy practices, but to call this an admission just makes it sound like click bait. It was never a secret.

    • demonsword@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      Incognito mode could be much better if it also scrambled your browser fingerprint. Then it would be much, much harder to be tracked by Google/Amazon/Meta/etc. But of course they’d never do that, it would cut on their bottom line…