this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
220 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

789 readers
14 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 70 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Everybody with basic reading abilities already knew that "incognito" is just "not saving stuff locally". Sites can track you regardlessly. With any browser.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 27 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

99.99999% of users don't know this... People who work in IT knows it and that's about it.

This is also why Google search is still popular too, people don't know about any alternatives and are afraid to use something else even. They don't even know why they may want to use something else. It's ridiculous.

[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Yeah, but "not knowing" is not (entirely?) Google's fault.

[–] Whom@midwest.social 20 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I can imagine a reasonable user who doesn't look into it beyond the old warning text being aware that incognito's purpose is to not store browsing history and therefore assuming that somehow impacts Google's ability to know where you've been. Like, they might know it doesn't stop trackers but assume not having the history logged means it's not there for Google to take. Or speaking more generally, they could've taken it to mean "we won't track you, but we can't do anything about others doing so."

I wouldn't say it just relied on basic reading abilities, as you could easily be misled if your mental model for how tracking and data collection works was just a bit off.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, often misunderstood, you do the same with Cookie Autodelete or Site Bleacher extensions.

[–] xilliah 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Honestly I thought it would send out a no tracking flag. I wouldn't be surprised if it is or will be illegal to ignore that flag in some jurisdictions.

[–] Wilker@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Do-Not-Track requests is nothing but a header on GET. at best, it's useless, with exceptions from websites that already barely track you. at worst, it's another data point for fingerprinting your browser.

[–] xilliah 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Ya so a good reason to include it in the next wave of legislation, if it wasn't already in one.

[–] drwho 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So, how much to buy a couple of lobbyists to get this ball rolling?

[–] xilliah 1 points 10 months ago

Ehh just sit back and wait for the EU to lead in privacy once more.

[–] Wilker@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago

yeah that's fair

[–] Caitlyynn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago

The Please don't track me Mr Google flag

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The change is being made as Google prepares to settle a class-action lawsuit that accuses the firm of privacy violations related to Chrome's Incognito mode.

This won't change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google."

The stable and Canary warnings both say that your browsing activity might still be visible to "websites you visit," "your employer or school," or "your Internet service provider."

We asked Google when the warning will be added to Chrome's stable channel and whether the change is mandated by or related to the pending settlement of the privacy class-action suit.

Incognito mode in Chrome will continue to give people the choice to browse the Internet without their activity being saved to their browser or device."

On December 26, 2023, Google and the plaintiffs announced that they reached a settlement that they planned to present to the court for approval within 60 days.


The original article contains 545 words, the summary contains 154 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] BlanK0@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I don't even use google anymore, I am currently using brave search (actually pretty good).

Not sure in terms of privacy if they respect that much but in my perspective brave aggregates results by themselves instead of just using the google or bing results so they are at least a decent alternative.

Also the ai integration has been good in the search results imo.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
[–] BlanK0@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

Didn't knew about it, thx for the Intel 🤙

[–] fl42v@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Although, I believe that's about their browser. Also, ddg's browser was far from advertised, as far as I remember.

In other words, librewolf/arkenfox. Maybe also ungoogled chromium, but seems like too much of a hustle to me.

google is olny ducktaped to a requirement in the privacy community because of YouTube pretty much nobody in the privacy community is using google or is even planning to use google but there's YouTube and mabye google forums