> Using private browsing mode is a very clear indication the the user does not want to give them that permission.

How? Incognito is meant to keep your history clear from other people who use the computer. It explicitly does nothing about websites tracking your activity.

Right, it says so in no uncertain terms, right on the page when you open Chrome's Incognito window:

>Your activity might still be visible to:

> - Websites you visit

> - Your employer or school

> - Your internet service provider

No uncertain terms?

I was under the impression that it wasn't supposed to be possible for a website to tell that the page was loaded in incognito mode; in fact, I thought it was important that they not be able to. As such, how would the page with good analytics even know the user was incognito.

incognito has always been riddled with holes. It's not a security measure. Go to nytimes in incognito.

I think the OP doesn't mean it's idiotic for Google to respect a user's wish not be tracked. I believe he's referring to lawyers not understanding separation of browser and web services.

I was really hoping this would be a lawsuit about Google collection of information period, rather than a quibble like this. Please too remember that Boies etc are the same scumbags (and that's the correct term) who defended Theranos, harassing those who informed the government.

Apple also doesn't understand it as well as every browser and website in existence. This lawsuit is stupid.

That the others are behaving badly as well does not excuse Googles behaviour.

That every other website in existence is behaving "badly?" Do you think Chrome should tell the website that the user is browsing in incognito mode so that websites will treat them differently? For example, a paywall website with a free article limit would simply not show content to users saying they are in incognito mode.

Enabling incognito mode in Chrome and Firefox even explains that it doesn't stop server-side tracking, so it's not even misleading.

There is DNT for example, which can easily be used to transmit the user's intentions automatically and without unnecessary interaction. The technical means are there, they just need to be enforced, which maybe this lawsuit will improve...

It's the website's responsibility to respect DNT=1, then not load the ga script. DNT is not widely adopted and there are no legal mandates for it. It is simply an expression of preference. Blocking third party scripts and third party cookies is something you can set in all browsers which will block GA.