this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
167 points (85.8% liked)
Technology
59207 readers
2520 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Know where else you'll find that same warning?
On every new incognito window in Chrome.
It's been there for years —
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. :(
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.
It's really good for present shopping if you use a shared device.
The computer has the ability to make accounts, so people have their own personal spaces.
I'm many use cases, yes.
I've never seen someone use this in the home (i.e., non-business/school) environment.
Browsers have their own user profiles now, but that's a much newer feature than Incognito mode.
Yeah I'm surprised this is news to some people. I thought everyone already knew this...
Well remember they just got rid of the 🔒 icon because too many people thought it meant the site was safe.
All that https effort and they gave up the lock? Dang. Google kills everything.
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.
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.)Hating on big tech is the new thing in 2024 I think. I’m not a fan either but this article is just stupid.
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.
The article isn't stupid. The court that made the decision is.
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.
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...
Yeah it's not news at all..