News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by eschulz on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:03PM (#26277760)
Upon opening an Incognito tab, Chrome warns you that your activity might be visible to websites that you visit. I'm sure Google's attorneys are aware of this.
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by pessimizer on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:35PM (#26278115)
Chrome warns you that websites that you visit may still track you. It doesn't warn you that Google, who owns Chrome, will still track you, which would put the lie to "incognito" anyway.

It's as silly as if I ran an "anonymous" clinic where you didn't have to give your name, but my employees were instructed to figure out who you were by running in-house facial recognition software and to place the results in your file. That's materially different than warning people that "although our clinic is anonymous, you may be recognized in the waiting room by other patients" which is the way people understand Chrome's warning.

Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by bqmjjx0kac on Friday February 26, 2021 @11:12PM (#26282509)
There are many sites on the internet, and other clinics to visit in your metaphor.
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by alasdair_ on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:14PM (#26277876)
>Upon opening an Incognito tab, Chrome warns you that your activity might be visible to websites that you visit. I'm sure Google's attorneys are aware of this.

To a layperson, there is a marked difference between activity and identity - there is nothing on the tab that states that the identity of the user is still discoverable.

Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by eschulz on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:04PM (#26278475)
You make a good point. There are trusting people, and then there are software devs and lawyers.