7 ms·

Google CEO allegedly sought to keep Incognito mode issues out of spotlight

200 points by rastafang 5y ago

MattGaiser 5y ago
Incognito seems pretty clear on its startup page about what it does and does not do. > Chrome won’t save the following information: > Your browsing history > Cookies and site data > Information entered in forms > Your activity might still be visible to: > Websites you visit > Your employer or school > Your internet service provider
- Closi 5y ago
  I think one of the slight catch/nuance is that if you sign into Google in incognito mode, then your browsing history will be tracked by Google across both the normal browser and incognito mode. The idea that Chrome won’t track your browsing but Google might is more than a little incongruous/confusing for the average user IMO.
  - notatoad 5y ago
    i think "the average user" understands that chrome is not a website. the incognito page warns you that "websites you visit" might still track you, and that's exactly what's happening. there might be a few people who are confused, but i don't think you can make the argument that google has intentionally misled anybody here. the fact that some people might be confused is not really google's fault. a lot of people are confused about a lot of things every day, nobody needs to be liable for that other than the confused people.
    - Closi 5y ago
      Although the average user might understand that “websites you visit might still track you”, I’m not sure they realise that a lot of websites secretly have a google tracking token which then records their cross-site activity and links it back to their google account if they login. IMO there is a difference between “the websites you visit might track you” and “the websites you visit might have a google tracker on which will mean we will still track your activity and the sites you visit with that token and link them against your identity”. The first might be technically true, but I think a lot of users would be surprised by the second more nuanced version.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > if you sign into Google in incognito mode, then your browsing history will be tracked by Google across both the normal browser and incognito mode. It'll track your searches on google.com, but not browsing history. Browser history is a function of signing into the browser, and you can't sign in an incognito window.
    - Closi 5y ago
      My understanding is that it’s more than search results - Google will also track any site you visit that uses Google Ads, Google Analytics or the Google token which is most of the web, and link all this to your Google account on their backend.
      - rnotaro 5y ago
        It does say that your activity can still be visible by the websites you visit.
        Closi 5y ago
        The reality is your activity can still be visible by the websites you visit and google plus maybe one or two other companies that have good adoption of their trackers. It’s the and google that I think is confusing for users. It can do that because of how widely adopted its tracking token is on websites (realistically as a website owner you need to put it on to get good google ads performance). The discontinuity is that when you go in Google Browsers private browsing mode Google will still track you by the websites you visit, across the web due to their tracking token, and they are one of the only companies on the web that can actually do that tracking.
- pdw 5y ago
  That's the new text that was introduced a month or so ago. I'm not sure what the older version(s) said.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    It seems more reformatted than substantially changed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxS75EWILNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxS75EWILNg
jeroenhd 5y ago
While I'll gladly criticise Google when they introduce yet more privacy invasion, this lawsuit is a stupid money grab and I hope Google wins this fight. The entire lawsuit revolves around the idea that incognito ("private") browsing somehow implies that users aren't tracked at all, despite a clear, front-and-center warning that they still might be whenever you use it, purely based on the name alone. Someone saw that law makers were going after big tech and wanted in on the action. This lawsuit servers nothing but the lawyers. If Google loses this, ANY name that COULD be ambiguous could become grounds for a lawsuit for billions despite all warnings you might add to software.
- hiptobecubic 5y ago
  "Incognito" isn't even that suggestive of a name. Compare that with e.g "Full Self Driving." If I go to a party incognito, I don't expect to leave no physical trace of my presence.
  - a5aAqU 5y ago
    > If I go to a party incognito, I don't expect to leave no physical trace of my presence. It's more like going to a party hosted by someone who makes a living by tracking you, where you were told that you are going to be incognito. But secretly, behind the scenes, you're still being tracked by the host of the party using a different technique.
    - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
      Doesn't incognito mode warn you that you will be tracked. I always understood it to be about avoiding leaving details of your browsing on a shared computer. How does google block your ISP / website from doing their usual stuff (ie, google analytics etc).
      - a5aAqU 5y ago
        > Doesn't incognito mode warn you that you will be tracked. It says some websites "might" track you. It doesn't let you know that Google itself is going to track you.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Google has tons of valid issues with their privacy, but honestly I don't think the ridiculousness of the Incognito Mode lawsuit has any merit. The description of Incognito Mode was always very clear that the client wasn't tracking you, but servers could still track you. The fact that Google has another product, Google Analytics, that they offer any website developer that want to put it on their site, does not mean their original description of Incognito Mode was inaccurate. Especially as a technologist, it irks me when I see journalists deliberately obfuscating what actually goes on with Incognito Mode.
- foerbert 5y ago
  I might be inclined to agree somewhat, except for the situation described in the article. It's one thing if somebody raised internal concerns about possible misconceptions and it was ultimately decided that it wasn't likely. It's another issue when those concerns are important enough to reach the CEO of Google-sized company, and that CEO then decides not to do anything lest they attract any attention. This is particularly true when dealing with something like a privacy mode.
- pydry 5y ago
  A more accurate front and center warning that servers including those run by google can and will try to track you. Wasnt what they wrote though.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    I actually think that's less accurate. Google on the server side isn't in any preferential position, better or worse, than any other server-side analytics. That's why I think this lawsuit is such bullshit, in that many of the "recommendations" in these comments are saying Google server technologies should specifically get called out (or worse, notified when a user is using Incognito Mode, which actually would be a gross privacy violation), when the whole point is that Chrome's Incognito Mode isn't any different that Safari or Firefox's Private Browsing, so why should Chrome call out something about Google's specific server-side analytics?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
There weren’t actually any issues with Incognito Mode. It was a manufactured crisis from people who wanted to claim that Incognito Mode was misleading about hiding internet activity from upstream network providers when it clearly explains otherwise on the Incognito Mode new tab. I don’t even know what the Incognito Mode opponents even wanted. Built-in free VPN service? Total removal of Incognito Mode? Google didn’t have any nefarious intent or actions in this. I don’t see why it would be wrong for them to downplay exaggerated allegations.
- rvnx 5y ago
  Nice idea, a Google-powered VPN to "protect your privacy" (from competitors eyes).
- chrononaut 5y ago
  > I don’t even know what the Incognito Mode opponents even wanted. Built-in free VPN service? Total removal of Incognito Mode? Agreed. I think this is a case of individual users deriving their own set of functional requirements and assumptions on what it means to be in "Incognito mode", which many people will have a differing opinion on, rather than a specific issue with the functionality provided by the browser. If it can't be called Incognito mode, I am not sure what other positioning or branding can be applied. There is merit for the current feature set, and gating those features until a significantly high bar is met seems unreasonable.
  - akersten 5y ago
    Yeah, the plaintiffs really need to lose this case. "It doesn't do what I imagined it did based on my uneducated misinterpretation of a brand name and refusal to read what the product clearly states every time I use it" is such a horrible basis for potential litigation that it boggles the mind it was allowed to proceed. Next up they'll be suing AstroGlide because applying the lube doesn't turn them into roller-skating cosmonauts.
  - DelightOne 5y ago
    "We change the way we track you"-mode?
howinteresting 5y ago
It is reasonable to assume that you won't be tracked by Google when you're incognito in Google's browser. Edit: Here's some empirical evidence: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/private-web-browsing-not-as-private-as-you-think-research.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/private-web-browsing-not-as-...
- dylan604 5y ago
  No, it is not. They clearly tell you this when you switch to Icognito mode.
  - rastafang 5y ago
    That Google is tracking everything you do on the browser is the problem here, not incognito.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    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.
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      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?
      - bryan0 5y ago
        > What specifically do you argue Google should have done here? Google should stop tracking users when they’re in incognito mode.
EnderWT 5y ago
https://archive.is/EaQ69 https://archive.is/EaQ69
goelectyourself 5y ago
Wow. Nearly every comment here is from someone who doesn't see this as a problem. Suspicious. Manipulative much? Incognito implies exactly that to the layman. Even with a warning about specifics. We had a sense that Google is acting in good conscious when incognito and it was the opposite, AND they have tried to hide it. Google saved our incognito searches to our Google profiles. Period. They misrepresented a product they built and have earned these consequences. It's not just Chrome incognito either. Google has acted shady time and time again with unfair business practices. Like YouTube, photos, mail, and drive account lockouts with no options to recover, because "we investigated our decision and we say we were correct. We're not going to tell you what you did wrong either, and you can't get your data back." Google needs to pay for their misbehavior.
- kahrl 5y ago
  No. Literally front and center. Do we have to design everything for the least common denominator? You’ve gone Incognito Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity. However, downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved. Learn more Chrome won’t save the following information: Your browsing history Cookies and site data Information entered in forms Your activity might still be visible to: Websites you visit Your employer or school Your internet service provider Block third-party cookies When on, sites can't use cookies that track you across the web. Features on some sites may break.
- cjsplat 5y ago
  I guess I'm not sure what incognito means to a layman - I'm stuck with knowing the actual definition. If I do something "incognito" it doesn't make your camera not work if you take my picture. At the most it may it a little harder to identify me. In recognition of the ongoing battle between celebrities and paparazzi, perhaps it should be called "floppy-hat" or "bad-wig" mode.
aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
This is right up there with the poodle in the microwave. Everybody knew that “incognito mode” was an euphemism for “porn mode”.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  Pfft, there's other uses for it. Such as signing into accounts one time on other people's computers.
- monkeyfacebag 5y ago
  I personally use it all the time, for everything I don’t want to show up in an autocomplete context. I started doing this probably 8 years ago after I got annoyed Google would auto suggest misspellings I had previously made. I think they’re much better about this these days but at this point it’s an instinct for pretty much every single one off Google query.
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  That, in fact, is what it's often called within Google, I can testify. How about "keep your spouse from finding out you look at porn" mode? Because that's what it's for.
shiado 5y ago
I only use Youtube in incognito mode to avoid the Youtube algorithm and recently I think they have started to preserve suggestions between incognito sessions. Not in the way the algorithm usually works, but much more subtly. It's probably some minor region-based suggestion that triggers but who knows. In the future I think all algorithm driven content sites will use uniquely fingerprinted undeletable algorithmic suggestions. Companies are leaving money on the table by letting users reset the state on algorithms that increase content consumption.
monkeyfacebag 5y ago
Reading through the article and the comments here, the facts aren't clear to me. Does Google itself track the behavior of its users in incognito mode? Some comments here allege that it does while others suggest this complaint is overblown.
- bmicraft 5y ago
  Chrome does not track you, websites will continues their scummy practises of js tracking - google not excluded
WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
The answer to the question whether the Incognito mode is private, given it’s marketed as such, is the same as about Tesla’s autopilot: yes, but actually no. As, sadly, are many other things. It seems to be the zeitgeist of modern marketing.
- bmicraft 5y ago
  Teslas Autopilot does more 'automatic' stuff than real autopilot on a plan, which can basically only predefined follow gps waypoints with a set speed. Just because people are stupid about it should not necessitate any changes on Teslas part.
  - WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
    Yes, but you’re missing the point: in the public perception, an autopilot is a device that flies the whole plane while pilots banter and drink coffee with croissants, go to the bathroom, and in general have a good time until it’s time to land. Telling them that a country road is far more complex than the open sky, and that air traffic is quite sparse, helps little.
AlbertCory 5y ago
A question that should precede any of this is: Why are you using Chrome at all? Why not keep it for Google services, if you want, but use Brave / Firefox / anything else for all other activities?
- jgwil2 5y ago
  We're talking about non-technical users here - the only such users who would be on Brave/FF are those with a family member in tech who told them to. Furthermore, it's my understanding that some sites tell users to use Chrome, as they don't test on other browsers.
jlokier 5y ago
For me, the biggest surprise with Chrome Incognito mode was discovering that separate Incognito windows share cookies with each other. I had been logging into accounts in an Incognito window, then opening a new Incognito window to visit other sites assuming they were new private sessions. One day I was surprised to find myself already logged in to someplace I visited, in a new Incognito window. At that point, I discovered that much of my Incognito activity across the web for the previous few months was in fact tracked to my identifiable, logged in accounts. And that my multiple accounts (for work, other work, personal) were potentially being linked together, which I did not want. For months I hadn't noticed because I tended not to open the same sites more than once. So I hadn't realised that cookie sharing was happening, which means cross-site tracking was happening. Now I don't use Incognito windows any more. There's no point, they aren't what I expected. Now I use Firefox Containers to segregate account logins and reduce unwanted profiling (e.g. with YouTube), and Temporary Containers when I want a new, ephemeral session. Firefox Temporary Containers actually do what I'd mistakenly thought Incognito mode was for.
- ikiris 5y ago
  Incognito was designed to prevent local eavesdropping, and was upfront about that being the feature. Why do you think it had anything to do with far side tracking at all?
  - jlokier 5y ago
    The issue I've described is about local eavesdropping, not only remote accounts. It was a surprise to open an new Incognito window and find it had access to sessions active in a different window. That defeats one of the expected use-cases of Incognito mode locally, which is when someone asks if they can borrow your computer to access their account. For example I've done this a few times in a library or hackerspace for someone I didn't know well. You open an Incognito window for them, and both you and they think it's safe for them to access their Facebook and Gmail or whatever, and then close the window. They think you can't browse their accounts after, and you think they can't browse your accounts if they stick to that window. Both turn out to be unexpectedly false - unless you know to kill all your existing Incognito windows first. Which you wouldn't do if you need to use them later, unless you know you have to close all the other windows first. As for local vs remote tracking. Incognito documentation does not say local eavesdropping is the only feature. It talks about holding a separate session for "cookies and site data" and that those are deleted when the session is closed; and about restrictions on third-party cookies. From Chrome help: > "Cookies and site data are remembered while you're browsing, but deleted when you exit Incognito mode. You can choose to block third-party cookies when you open a new incognito window." Like anyone technically aware of how the web works, I don't expect this feature to prevent tracking in general, or to truly hide my identity. But I do expect a cookie session container, which Incognito mode does advertise, to allow me to login to separate accounts without ending up logged into an account unexpectedly. The issue is not that tracking takes place. It's that the scope and duration of a session was surprising in a way I didn't expect from the UX, and it's not the most useful in situations such as the "make a window for a guest" situation described above. Getting this wrong also adds a security risk to those of us tasked with protecting other people's data via browser tools. I posted about it here because I think the behaviour will be a surprise to other people too; it should at least be more well known.
bestnameever 5y ago
Incognito mode has always been to me just a way to prevent the local client from maintaining my history but I also recall that was the way it was marketed when it first came out. Tracking wasn't really on my mind at that point. I wonder if some differences in perspectives are the result of when you first became familiar with the feature.

200 points by rastafang 5y ago

Incognito seems pretty clear on its startup page about what it does and does not do. > Chrome won’t save the following information: > Your browsing history > Cookies and site data > Information entered in forms > Your activity might still be visible to: > Websites you visit > Your employer or school > Your internet service provider

Closi 5y ago
I think one of the slight catch/nuance is that if you sign into Google in incognito mode, then your browsing history will be tracked by Google across both the normal browser and incognito mode. The idea that Chrome won’t track your browsing but Google might is more than a little incongruous/confusing for the average user IMO.
- notatoad 5y ago
  i think "the average user" understands that chrome is not a website. the incognito page warns you that "websites you visit" might still track you, and that's exactly what's happening. there might be a few people who are confused, but i don't think you can make the argument that google has intentionally misled anybody here. the fact that some people might be confused is not really google's fault. a lot of people are confused about a lot of things every day, nobody needs to be liable for that other than the confused people.
  - Closi 5y ago
    Although the average user might understand that “websites you visit might still track you”, I’m not sure they realise that a lot of websites secretly have a google tracking token which then records their cross-site activity and links it back to their google account if they login. IMO there is a difference between “the websites you visit might track you” and “the websites you visit might have a google tracker on which will mean we will still track your activity and the sites you visit with that token and link them against your identity”. The first might be technically true, but I think a lot of users would be surprised by the second more nuanced version.
- magicalist 5y ago
  > if you sign into Google in incognito mode, then your browsing history will be tracked by Google across both the normal browser and incognito mode. It'll track your searches on google.com, but not browsing history. Browser history is a function of signing into the browser, and you can't sign in an incognito window.
  - Closi 5y ago
    My understanding is that it’s more than search results - Google will also track any site you visit that uses Google Ads, Google Analytics or the Google token which is most of the web, and link all this to your Google account on their backend.
    - rnotaro 5y ago
      It does say that your activity can still be visible by the websites you visit.
      - Closi 5y ago
        The reality is your activity can still be visible by the websites you visit and google plus maybe one or two other companies that have good adoption of their trackers. It’s the and google that I think is confusing for users. It can do that because of how widely adopted its tracking token is on websites (realistically as a website owner you need to put it on to get good google ads performance). The discontinuity is that when you go in Google Browsers private browsing mode Google will still track you by the websites you visit, across the web due to their tracking token, and they are one of the only companies on the web that can actually do that tracking.
pdw 5y ago
That's the new text that was introduced a month or so ago. I'm not sure what the older version(s) said.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  It seems more reformatted than substantially changed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxS75EWILNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxS75EWILNg

jeroenhd 5y ago

While I'll gladly criticise Google when they introduce yet more privacy invasion, this lawsuit is a stupid money grab and I hope Google wins this fight. The entire lawsuit revolves around the idea that incognito ("private") browsing somehow implies that users aren't tracked at all, despite a clear, front-and-center warning that they still might be whenever you use it, purely based on the name alone. Someone saw that law makers were going after big tech and wanted in on the action. This lawsuit servers nothing but the lawyers. If Google loses this, ANY name that COULD be ambiguous could become grounds for a lawsuit for billions despite all warnings you might add to software.

hiptobecubic 5y ago
"Incognito" isn't even that suggestive of a name. Compare that with e.g "Full Self Driving." If I go to a party incognito, I don't expect to leave no physical trace of my presence.
- a5aAqU 5y ago
  > If I go to a party incognito, I don't expect to leave no physical trace of my presence. It's more like going to a party hosted by someone who makes a living by tracking you, where you were told that you are going to be incognito. But secretly, behind the scenes, you're still being tracked by the host of the party using a different technique.
  - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
    Doesn't incognito mode warn you that you will be tracked. I always understood it to be about avoiding leaving details of your browsing on a shared computer. How does google block your ISP / website from doing their usual stuff (ie, google analytics etc).
    - a5aAqU 5y ago
      > Doesn't incognito mode warn you that you will be tracked. It says some websites "might" track you. It doesn't let you know that Google itself is going to track you.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Google has tons of valid issues with their privacy, but honestly I don't think the ridiculousness of the Incognito Mode lawsuit has any merit. The description of Incognito Mode was always very clear that the client wasn't tracking you, but servers could still track you. The fact that Google has another product, Google Analytics, that they offer any website developer that want to put it on their site, does not mean their original description of Incognito Mode was inaccurate. Especially as a technologist, it irks me when I see journalists deliberately obfuscating what actually goes on with Incognito Mode.

foerbert 5y ago
I might be inclined to agree somewhat, except for the situation described in the article. It's one thing if somebody raised internal concerns about possible misconceptions and it was ultimately decided that it wasn't likely. It's another issue when those concerns are important enough to reach the CEO of Google-sized company, and that CEO then decides not to do anything lest they attract any attention. This is particularly true when dealing with something like a privacy mode.
pydry 5y ago
A more accurate front and center warning that servers including those run by google can and will try to track you. Wasnt what they wrote though.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  I actually think that's less accurate. Google on the server side isn't in any preferential position, better or worse, than any other server-side analytics. That's why I think this lawsuit is such bullshit, in that many of the "recommendations" in these comments are saying Google server technologies should specifically get called out (or worse, notified when a user is using Incognito Mode, which actually would be a gross privacy violation), when the whole point is that Chrome's Incognito Mode isn't any different that Safari or Firefox's Private Browsing, so why should Chrome call out something about Google's specific server-side analytics?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

There weren’t actually any issues with Incognito Mode. It was a manufactured crisis from people who wanted to claim that Incognito Mode was misleading about hiding internet activity from upstream network providers when it clearly explains otherwise on the Incognito Mode new tab. I don’t even know what the Incognito Mode opponents even wanted. Built-in free VPN service? Total removal of Incognito Mode? Google didn’t have any nefarious intent or actions in this. I don’t see why it would be wrong for them to downplay exaggerated allegations.

rvnx 5y ago
Nice idea, a Google-powered VPN to "protect your privacy" (from competitors eyes).
chrononaut 5y ago
> I don’t even know what the Incognito Mode opponents even wanted. Built-in free VPN service? Total removal of Incognito Mode? Agreed. I think this is a case of individual users deriving their own set of functional requirements and assumptions on what it means to be in "Incognito mode", which many people will have a differing opinion on, rather than a specific issue with the functionality provided by the browser. If it can't be called Incognito mode, I am not sure what other positioning or branding can be applied. There is merit for the current feature set, and gating those features until a significantly high bar is met seems unreasonable.
- akersten 5y ago
  Yeah, the plaintiffs really need to lose this case. "It doesn't do what I imagined it did based on my uneducated misinterpretation of a brand name and refusal to read what the product clearly states every time I use it" is such a horrible basis for potential litigation that it boggles the mind it was allowed to proceed. Next up they'll be suing AstroGlide because applying the lube doesn't turn them into roller-skating cosmonauts.
- DelightOne 5y ago
  "We change the way we track you"-mode?

howinteresting 5y ago

It is reasonable to assume that you won't be tracked by Google when you're incognito in Google's browser. Edit: Here's some empirical evidence: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/private-web-browsing-not-as-private-as-you-think-research.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/private-web-browsing-not-as-...

dylan604 5y ago
No, it is not. They clearly tell you this when you switch to Icognito mode.
- rastafang 5y ago
  That Google is tracking everything you do on the browser is the problem here, not incognito.
- howinteresting 5y ago
  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.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    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?
    - bryan0 5y ago
      > What specifically do you argue Google should have done here? Google should stop tracking users when they’re in incognito mode.

EnderWT 5y ago

https://archive.is/EaQ69 https://archive.is/EaQ69

goelectyourself 5y ago

Wow. Nearly every comment here is from someone who doesn't see this as a problem. Suspicious. Manipulative much? Incognito implies exactly that to the layman. Even with a warning about specifics. We had a sense that Google is acting in good conscious when incognito and it was the opposite, AND they have tried to hide it. Google saved our incognito searches to our Google profiles. Period. They misrepresented a product they built and have earned these consequences. It's not just Chrome incognito either. Google has acted shady time and time again with unfair business practices. Like YouTube, photos, mail, and drive account lockouts with no options to recover, because "we investigated our decision and we say we were correct. We're not going to tell you what you did wrong either, and you can't get your data back." Google needs to pay for their misbehavior.

kahrl 5y ago
No. Literally front and center. Do we have to design everything for the least common denominator? You’ve gone Incognito Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won’t see your activity. However, downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved. Learn more Chrome won’t save the following information: Your browsing history Cookies and site data Information entered in forms Your activity might still be visible to: Websites you visit Your employer or school Your internet service provider Block third-party cookies When on, sites can't use cookies that track you across the web. Features on some sites may break.
cjsplat 5y ago
I guess I'm not sure what incognito means to a layman - I'm stuck with knowing the actual definition. If I do something "incognito" it doesn't make your camera not work if you take my picture. At the most it may it a little harder to identify me. In recognition of the ongoing battle between celebrities and paparazzi, perhaps it should be called "floppy-hat" or "bad-wig" mode.

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

This is right up there with the poodle in the microwave. Everybody knew that “incognito mode” was an euphemism for “porn mode”.

Mikeb85 5y ago
Pfft, there's other uses for it. Such as signing into accounts one time on other people's computers.
monkeyfacebag 5y ago
I personally use it all the time, for everything I don’t want to show up in an autocomplete context. I started doing this probably 8 years ago after I got annoyed Google would auto suggest misspellings I had previously made. I think they’re much better about this these days but at this point it’s an instinct for pretty much every single one off Google query.
AlbertCory 5y ago
That, in fact, is what it's often called within Google, I can testify. How about "keep your spouse from finding out you look at porn" mode? Because that's what it's for.

shiado 5y ago

I only use Youtube in incognito mode to avoid the Youtube algorithm and recently I think they have started to preserve suggestions between incognito sessions. Not in the way the algorithm usually works, but much more subtly. It's probably some minor region-based suggestion that triggers but who knows. In the future I think all algorithm driven content sites will use uniquely fingerprinted undeletable algorithmic suggestions. Companies are leaving money on the table by letting users reset the state on algorithms that increase content consumption.

monkeyfacebag 5y ago

Reading through the article and the comments here, the facts aren't clear to me. Does Google itself track the behavior of its users in incognito mode? Some comments here allege that it does while others suggest this complaint is overblown.

bmicraft 5y ago
Chrome does not track you, websites will continues their scummy practises of js tracking - google not excluded

WesolyKubeczek 5y ago

The answer to the question whether the Incognito mode is private, given it’s marketed as such, is the same as about Tesla’s autopilot: yes, but actually no. As, sadly, are many other things. It seems to be the zeitgeist of modern marketing.

bmicraft 5y ago
Teslas Autopilot does more 'automatic' stuff than real autopilot on a plan, which can basically only predefined follow gps waypoints with a set speed. Just because people are stupid about it should not necessitate any changes on Teslas part.
- WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
  Yes, but you’re missing the point: in the public perception, an autopilot is a device that flies the whole plane while pilots banter and drink coffee with croissants, go to the bathroom, and in general have a good time until it’s time to land. Telling them that a country road is far more complex than the open sky, and that air traffic is quite sparse, helps little.

AlbertCory 5y ago

A question that should precede any of this is: Why are you using Chrome at all? Why not keep it for Google services, if you want, but use Brave / Firefox / anything else for all other activities?

jgwil2 5y ago
We're talking about non-technical users here - the only such users who would be on Brave/FF are those with a family member in tech who told them to. Furthermore, it's my understanding that some sites tell users to use Chrome, as they don't test on other browsers.

jlokier 5y ago

For me, the biggest surprise with Chrome Incognito mode was discovering that separate Incognito windows share cookies with each other. I had been logging into accounts in an Incognito window, then opening a new Incognito window to visit other sites assuming they were new private sessions. One day I was surprised to find myself already logged in to someplace I visited, in a new Incognito window. At that point, I discovered that much of my Incognito activity across the web for the previous few months was in fact tracked to my identifiable, logged in accounts. And that my multiple accounts (for work, other work, personal) were potentially being linked together, which I did not want. For months I hadn't noticed because I tended not to open the same sites more than once. So I hadn't realised that cookie sharing was happening, which means cross-site tracking was happening. Now I don't use Incognito windows any more. There's no point, they aren't what I expected. Now I use Firefox Containers to segregate account logins and reduce unwanted profiling (e.g. with YouTube), and Temporary Containers when I want a new, ephemeral session. Firefox Temporary Containers actually do what I'd mistakenly thought Incognito mode was for.

ikiris 5y ago
Incognito was designed to prevent local eavesdropping, and was upfront about that being the feature. Why do you think it had anything to do with far side tracking at all?
- jlokier 5y ago
  The issue I've described is about local eavesdropping, not only remote accounts. It was a surprise to open an new Incognito window and find it had access to sessions active in a different window. That defeats one of the expected use-cases of Incognito mode locally, which is when someone asks if they can borrow your computer to access their account. For example I've done this a few times in a library or hackerspace for someone I didn't know well. You open an Incognito window for them, and both you and they think it's safe for them to access their Facebook and Gmail or whatever, and then close the window. They think you can't browse their accounts after, and you think they can't browse your accounts if they stick to that window. Both turn out to be unexpectedly false - unless you know to kill all your existing Incognito windows first. Which you wouldn't do if you need to use them later, unless you know you have to close all the other windows first. As for local vs remote tracking. Incognito documentation does not say local eavesdropping is the only feature. It talks about holding a separate session for "cookies and site data" and that those are deleted when the session is closed; and about restrictions on third-party cookies. From Chrome help: > "Cookies and site data are remembered while you're browsing, but deleted when you exit Incognito mode. You can choose to block third-party cookies when you open a new incognito window." Like anyone technically aware of how the web works, I don't expect this feature to prevent tracking in general, or to truly hide my identity. But I do expect a cookie session container, which Incognito mode does advertise, to allow me to login to separate accounts without ending up logged into an account unexpectedly. The issue is not that tracking takes place. It's that the scope and duration of a session was surprising in a way I didn't expect from the UX, and it's not the most useful in situations such as the "make a window for a guest" situation described above. Getting this wrong also adds a security risk to those of us tasked with protecting other people's data via browser tools. I posted about it here because I think the behaviour will be a surprise to other people too; it should at least be more well known.

bestnameever 5y ago

Incognito mode has always been to me just a way to prevent the local client from maintaining my history but I also recall that was the way it was marketed when it first came out. Tracking wasn't really on my mind at that point. I wonder if some differences in perspectives are the result of when you first became familiar with the feature.