Chrome is not, and it seems pretty clear that it's not because that would hurt Google's bottom line. There's no conflict here between "Google shouldn't track you" and "Google should be split up".
> Most websites and web services, including Google's, don't change their behavior when they receive a Do Not Track request. Chrome doesn't provide details of which websites and web services respect Do Not Track requests and how websites interpret them.
You got scammed by Mozilla if you think that.
Please have a deep look at the various documentation on how the Internet works and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not.
This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares.
Wow. I understand how the internet works, but thanks for the personal attack.
> ... and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not.
Of course, and Google controls the receiving server in this case. If they honored the Do-Not-Track header, and if Chrome sent it, users would be better off. Of course browsers can't control what all servers will do. But by sending it, servers that do honor it will.
> This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares.
You seem to be saying that because not all services honor the header, it should never be sent. I would say that sending it is better than not sending it, because some services do honor it. And the fact that Google doesn't honor it is telling itself.
Firefox obviously does try, and DNT is not the only proof. They have put in a ton of work to make fingerprinting harder.
1) Chrome should enable the Do Not Track header when in private browsing, as any reasonable person would expect they would.
2) Google websites and analytics should respect Do Not Track.
I'm repeating what others have said but I think it's important to separate these out as different issues, because it completely nullifies everything you just said -- both are strong arguments on their own, and Chrome being a Google product is completely irrelevant to both.
I also disagree that "any reasonable person" would expect the header to be used in private browsing. Safari invented private browsing in 2005, and Chrome Incognito mode launched in 2008. Do Not Track didn't even exist as a concept back then.
Incognito mode was never intended to be anti-tracking. It's only ever been intended to hide your browsing history locally, e.g. from family members.
Tracking protection has an entirely different purpose. And if you want protection from tracking, you'd presumably want it in all windows, not just incognito windows, right?
These are the important issues to be kept separate. Anti-tracking is something that should be consistent across all browser windows. It has nothing to do with Incognito. Incognito is about not saving browser history locally. Totally separate.
They're totally separate now, but it's not clear that they should be, and it seems pretty clear that they're not separate in the minds of users.
I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where a user would want to hide their local history, but are totally cool with people who don't have physical access getting access to their activities.
Very easy.
Let's be honest, incognito mode is generally used for watching porn without worrying that it will pop up in the autocomplete box or history later.
But you log into the porn site, in incognito mode, in order to access your saved videos, subscriptions, etc. The porn site knows exactly who you are, tied to your credit card number, etc. Your ISP knows you visit the porn site. Your credit card knows you pay for it.
That's the main use case. The privacy is ONLY regarding local history. That's the only expectation there's ever been.
Given that the judge in this case had different expectations, that's clearly false. That may have been the intention of the feature, but I can easily see why it may not be the expectation of users.
The judge in this case is simply seriously misinterpreting the feature. There are always going to be some percentage of users who misunderstand a feature no matter how explicit and clearly it's been described. Even if they're a judge.
Google isn't misleading anyone here. Every time you open an Incognito page it says EXACTLY what it does and doesn't. If some users and even some judges can't read, that's their problem.
So basically: "Your honour, I can prove I didn't rob John, I had my brother do it for me!"
is google going to wait until there's regular street fighting in cities across the nation before they change their surveillance behavior?
My account has been around for a long time and I agree with them. It's a well-reasoned explanation. It is correct on the purpose of incognito mode (to protect privacy locally only, e.g. from family) as well as the obvious point that if you're using Google.com while in incognito mode (very common), it's tracking you as it would anywhere. Websites aren't even supposed to know you're in incognito mode.
Incognito means and has always meant "fresh browser tab with no history". It has never meant no tracking.
I somewhat agree with the point they made and this is not a throwaway if that helps.
Private mode never was meant to be a privacy feature against websites. Private mode is to prevent your LOCAL history from containing anything you searched/visited and the legit use case is sharing of the computer with other members of family, for instance. For websites, nothing really changes. They can still track you all the way they want.