Google updates Chrome's Incognito Mode disclaimer to admit it is tracking users

I don’t use chrome but this is a whole lot of nothing. It’s basically saying if you save a file or an article to your reading list it’ll still be there…and that remote websites will still stuff your face with cookies and try to track you…but it’s not like they’re giving you a special chrome cookie to link your private and non private browsing. Server side tracking never goes away, not even with Firefox.

Anyways, who cares. Delete chrome and start using Firefox. But again, make sure you delete the files you download in incognito or they’ll still be there. And your ISP can still see which domains you’re going to if you use them as your DNS.

And your ISP can still see which domains you’re going to if you use them as your DNS.

Just so you know, because TLS SNI is not encrypted and not yet universally obfuscated (adoption of this is pretty slow and one of the largest CDN providers had to pause their rollout last I checked), not-even-barely-deep packet inspection can be used to track the sites you visit regardless of your DNS provider or wherever resolution is encrypted. Just do a packet dump and see.

Also, if a website isn't fronted by one of the most popular CDN providers in existence, it can be possible to infer the sites you're visiting based on their server IP addresses.

Although this just shifts where tracking can occur, a VPN is the only reliable way to maybe prevent your ISP from tracking the sites you visit, if this is your desire.
- Yep, I’m aware. It’s how that one guy hacked his airplanes wireless, by setting up a certificate with his domain and the airlines and then using that domain + port 443 as an ssh or vpn tunnel.
  
  So TLS rollout is slow because the websites can still be seen with packet inspection? We’re talking about TLS 1.4 right?

I'm curious as to what led people to believe otherwise before this update. I don't use chrome but I recall it always being reffered to as porn mode. Meaning it just doesn't save browsing history, no more no less.

Did Google have misleading wording implying it was doing anything else?

It also doesn’t preserve cookies after closing the window. I’m also curious what people expect that mode to do.
- Well, full incognito I guess, no trace for you, you can surf even the deep web... That for the less technical folks ofc.
I remember interviews with the development team about it. As far as I know they were always clear what was happening on the back end.
Did Google have misleading wording implying it was doing anything else?

Do they literally have anything else?
- Every time I've read the disclaimer it has been very clear and accurate, but don't let me cloud the issue with facts.

Okay Chrome lovers, talk yourself out of this one…

Well you see, it's used by virtually everything. So get used to it. is all I imagine people saying, not my opinion.
- Ahh yes, the good ole, “you don’t have a choice” nonsense. 😉
I can bitch about chrome all day long... but none of that bitching will be about incognito mode as that was and continues to be an useful feature that did exactly what I expected it to do. Everything it said it did, it did.

Just because people made up their own imaginary ideas about what they think it does isn't really Google's fault. If people think snorkels allow them to scuba dive and then drown, I'm not about to blame the snorkel maker that wrote 'diving googles and snorkel' on the packaging.
I switched away from chrome a while ago, but this is just stupid. Incognito has always said that it can’t stop sties from tracking you. It’s always been about stopping stuff from being stored locally. Here’s the message:

If you read that and thought it did more than it said, that’s on you.
- I think what people are complaining about is that Google itself is tracking you. Not just with cookies, but with the chrome browser. Everything you do goes back to Google, regardless of their silly Google analytics, JavaScript tag that people block.
Incognito mode didn't do what it was never advertised to do, and in fact does precisely what it always claimed. The horror!

I swear people like you act like every day Google simply exists is a fresh outrage.

All google products track you. Don’t use Google products.

Firefox's private browsing description is pretty solid if anybody managed to read it

Care to elaborate?
- I mean you can open up Firefox and check for yourself but here is an image I found online of it

I was always curious why is it called Incognito or Private mode? Temporary or Guest session would make more sense: "You've entered a Temporary session. Your browsing history and cookies will not be saved."

I don't believe it was ever called 'private mode', or am I wrong on this?
- Private Browsing, for browsing private parts.
- Private Mode is on Firefox.
- private browsing term appears in desktop and Android. Apple also uses the term.
- On Firefox it's called Private mode, on Edge it's called InPrivate mode.
Guest sessions already exist in the profile menu and is a separate feature. Guest doesn't save history/cookies/etc locally but also doesn't use your existing history, extensions, bookmarks, settings, etc. It's intended more for an actual guest user to sign into temporarily.

I find this very silly. Incognito always had disclaimers about how it doesn't protect you from tracking. Do people not know Google is just a website that does taking (or did anyway) like any other? And how tf did Google lose that lawsuit when eulas have "this software isn't fit for any purpose" clauses ~~and incognito was never advertised for privacy to begin with~~ and straight up tells you it doesnt give you privacy when you open it.

“If you’re concerned, for whatever reason, you do not wish to be tracked by federal and state authorities, my strong recommendation is to use [Google Chrome’s] incognito mode.”

Eric Schmidt, 2014

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/01/05/super-cookies-can-track-you-over-google-incognito/
- I stand corrected
If I had to guess, is because the mode's very name strongly tells you so?

Definition-- adjective (of a person) having one's true identity concealed. "in order to observe you have to be incognito"

adverb in a way that conceals one's true identity. "he is now operating incognito"

noun an assumed or false identity. "she is locked in her incognito"
- having one's true identity concealed
  
  Which is exactly what the incognito mode does. Being incognito doesn't mean you can't be tracked in your fake identity
not protecting users from tracking is very different than wantonly tracking users yourself when they literally hit the privacy button
- I would think such a thing would be a bigger liability. Because even if Google stops tracking you other trackers wouldn't. If people didn't read and understand "this does not protect against trackers" they definitely aren't going to do that with "this will stop Google's trackers but not 3rd party ones".

Good to see Google finally fixing issues

If you don't want to be tracked just use LibreWolf or Tor

I'd say give a try to Firefox
- Isn't Librewolf fork of Firefox with hardened features pre-enabled?
- LibreWolf is just Firefox but better and Tor is Firefox but maximum privacy
WaterFox too
- Never personally used it but seems nice

I can’t remember the last time I used Google Chrome.

Nothing but Firefox and a Linux chromium browser.

Unfortunately I have it installed to double-check things and occasional compatibility purpose. Believe it or not, sites have started to appear who work in Chrome but not Firefox. Solution is most likely perfectly simple but developers just don't want to deal with it so I've been told "just use Chrome" few times in past few years.
- Yep. There’s the occasional rare site that demands chrome. That’s when chromium comes in handy. I can’t think of a single site I use that I’m willing to install chrome for. Your needs are different, though.
Firefox's InPrivate mode is the exact same feature.
- Not quite, in 2018 they did add tracking protection to their list of goals for their Private browsing mode and have implemented features to reduce tracking/fingerprinting/etc while in it. The main focuses though were still the same at the start though: protecting against local data being saved.
  
  https://wiki.mozilla.org/Private_Browsing
  
  We target Private Browsing to 3 privacy goals; in a Private Browsing session, Firefox:
  
  Doesn’t save the browsing history or display it in the Firefox UI
  
  Prevents the session's data from writing to persistent storage
  
  Protects the session's data from online tracking

Talk about easy way out. "There, problem solved. It's not a violation if we write it somewhere in tiny font."

The amount of words needed to fully explain this to tech illiterate idiots would be so many that those idiots would just argue they cannot be expected to read all of it. These people already do this with the terms + conditions documents they agree to.

Incognito mode did every single thing it said it did and behaved exactly as I expected from day one. Is there a single user here who actually was surprised by how it worked? Did anyone honestly think it was like Tor or something? Why? Where did anyone ever get that idea at all?
- Expected incognito functionality sits in the gaping chasm between actual incognito functionality and TOR. When I'm being told I can go incognito - you know, sneaky, in disguise, I don't expect to have all of my activity broadcast back to those that say I'm incognito.
  
  Of course, trusting current Google is foolish, but that doesn't make it less deceptive.

Every day I'm more glad I've got rid of that spyware browser-wannabe called Chrome.