Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are...
by gruez on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:25PM
(#26278003)
>and then if incognito makes itself too obvious, that info is also interesting for tracking...
AFAIK that's already trivially detectable on most (all?) browsers.
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are...
by sammorrowdrums on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:40PM
(#26278158)
Yeah, and there are some excellent fingerprinting testing sites that show it that even from a single website visit you can be narrowed down substantially, and from there a few more visits to sites working together and they could easily pin you down to an exact person. The discussion about malicious actors is insane, even legitimate ones can do it easily.
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are...
by wtetzner on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:51PM
(#26278296)
Sure, but Google could honor Dot Not Track, and Chrome could send it when in Incognito mode.
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are...
by swiley on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:44PM
(#26278205)
Eventually everyone will be forced to use TOR because of stuff like this.
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are...
by LegitShady on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:59PM
(#26278410)
[insert youtube vpn ad here]
Privacy is hard