News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by crazygringo on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:54PM (#26278342)
Please read the HN guidelines on commenting. You're attacking the commenter's account, assuming bad faith, and name-calling their argument a "rant" instead of responding to the actual argument they're making.

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.

Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by malux85 on Friday February 26, 2021 @01:57PM (#26278376)
No I'm not, I said "I love these accounts", I find them enormously entertaining
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by eagsalazar2 on Friday February 26, 2021 @02:14PM (#26278603)
Just apologize for baselessly attacking the gp and admit your condescending "high ground" is indefensible. I've done it on HN before, it feels pretty good vs continuing to defend a rash comment.
Re:Judge in Google case disturbed that 'incognito' users are... by dang on Saturday February 27, 2021 @05:45PM (#26288864)
Please don't post unsubstantive comments or flamebait to HN. Please do follow the site guidelines. You've broken them badly in this thread.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html