Google's Pichai Ordered To Answer Queries About 'Incognito' Mode (bloomberglaw.com) 42
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg Law: Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai must face questioning in a California federal court lawsuit over privacy concerns surrounding Google's "incognito" web browsing mode. Lawyers for the consumers who sued want to ask Pichai about user misconceptions of their privacy online while using Google's Chrome browser. Pichai is subject to up to two hours of testimony under an order issued Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit, filed in June 2020, alleges that Google tracks users even when they're browsing in incognito mode. Google disputes the claims, arguing that its privacy disclosures make clear that the private browsing mode doesn't make user activities "invisible" online. In an earlier order, Judge Lucy Koh also allowed consumers to question Google's chief marketing officer, Lorraine Twohill, about incognito's branding as private. Google has tried to toss the claims from consumers, but so far Koh has let them proceed. The company also argued against questioning Pichai, saying lower-level employees responsible for Chrome and the incognito mode are better suited to answering inquiries about private browsing.
The lawsuit, filed in June 2020, alleges that Google tracks users even when they're browsing in incognito mode. Google disputes the claims, arguing that its privacy disclosures make clear that the private browsing mode doesn't make user activities "invisible" online. In an earlier order, Judge Lucy Koh also allowed consumers to question Google's chief marketing officer, Lorraine Twohill, about incognito's branding as private. Google has tried to toss the claims from consumers, but so far Koh has let them proceed. The company also argued against questioning Pichai, saying lower-level employees responsible for Chrome and the incognito mode are better suited to answering inquiries about private browsing.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether he understands the technicalities of the feature or not, he deserves to be raked over the coals for Google's abysmally invasive lack of privacy protections. Their whole business model, like Facebook, is based on collecting user information, and keeping users as uninformed about it as possible.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim of being "uninformed" is ridiculous. We informed you on page 834 of the EULA.
Hahahaha, amateurs! Real marketeers use at the very least page 846'642'922 of the EULA! Otherwise somebody may actually find what is in there!
Re: (Score:2)
What are these "pages" you refer to? I thought it was at 84.664 N 29.22 E in the metaeula.
Re: Good. (Score:2)
You mean you couldnâ(TM)t understand the lawyer speak? Thatâ(TM)s your fault for not spending a year in law school.
Re: (Score:2)
It's long but Google's EULA is actually one of the best among tech companies. It's in reasonably plain language and includes links to explanations and controls where you can revoke permission for certain uses.
https://policies.google.com/te... [google.com]
Note that the version displayed depends on your location. I'm looking at the UK one, which is still governed by GDPR but not protected as well as EU countries from data export to the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Their whole business model, like Facebook, is based on collecting user information, and keeping users as uninformed about it as possible.
I know you don't care, but open an incognito window.
There are 58 words.
It informs you right there what does and does not do.
58 words
The very first sentence:
Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device wonâ(TM)t see your activity. However, downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved.
It says exactly what is sent to Google, and exactly who won't see your activity.
If you think "here's the data sent to google:" isn't informing you of the data sent to google, it literally
The beauty of corporations (Score:5, Interesting)
The man at the top can claim ignorance of details...and that is apparently acceptable.
The man in the middle can do the same, and say he's just following orders.
The man at the bottom can say he's just following orders, not setting policies.
One can see why middle management is so attractive and so bloated in headcount.
Insert joke about being the man in the middle of your favorite sex fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
One can see why middle management is so attractive and so bloated in headcount.
I don't, it seems nonsensical.
Yeah their wording is cheeky (Score:3, Interesting)
They deserve to get a tap for intentionally misleading people.
You see, they say specifically -
Chrome won’t save the following information:
Your browsing history
Cookies and site data
Information entered in forms
Your activity might still be visible to:
Websites you visit
Your employer or school
Your internet service provider
They leave out the fact that google still also tracks where you go. It's a false sense of privacy by saying you can browse privately. Then listing a few things that won't be saved /IN CHROME / specifically, and listing a few places activity might be visible.
Like let's see how people like it if it says, "Places activity will definitely be visible: Google servers for marketing information"
When you know people would be less comfortable with it if it just said "Entering do not save history locally mode" only.
Re: (Score:2)
They leave out the fact that google still also tracks where you go.
Does it? How is Google tracking you? Does Chrome have an exception for Google cookies?
Re: (Score:2)
They leave out the fact that google still also tracks where you go.
Does it? How is Google tracking you? Does Chrome have an exception for Google cookies?
Apparently, it sometimes does. Or at least Google analytics sets some cookies with long lifetime (years) when browsing with Chrome or Chromium that get not set with Firefox. Found that in an GDPR audit recently. They had to remove Google analytics from the page to fix it. Cannot have any long-lived cookies set before the user agrees to the cookie-policy, after all.
Re:Yeah their wording is cheeky (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it? How is Google tracking you? Does Chrome have an exception for Google cookies?
I don't think it's even cookie based. I believe anything you type into the browsers address bar and pages loaded is send directly to google by the browser itself, no cookies necessary.
I can't confirm that but that's what I gathered is the implication and I always suspected. Otherwise why would everyone be pushing so hard for you to use their flavor of browser, if it didn't directly integrate and track, and just had to use cookies like any other browser?
they wouldn't need you to use their own browser for their yummy personal information for marketing. The amount of effort they put into it just makes logical sense that their own browser must phone home independently and share information.
Re: (Score:3)
You are wrong. In incognito mode what you type into the address bar is not sent to Google. The search suggestions feature is disabled.
You can confirm this yourself by loading up Wireshark and observing the difference in traffic between normal mode and incognito mode. It's not difficult.
The other browser makers are pushing for you to use their browsers because they have added monetization features that they want you to use. Microsoft has some shopping assistant crap, Brave has a crypto currency scam, DuckDuc
Re: (Score:1)
You are wrong. In incognito mode what you type into the address bar is not sent to Google. The search suggestions feature is disabled.
Well I suppose that's what this entire inquery is about.
I also wouldn't doubt them so easily, google has top tier programmers and some really intelligent guys. Unless you debug the entire program, they know some wise guy would use wireshark to pick out packets and data transfer to 'test' incognito mode. What's to say the browser doesn't store the data locally, and only transmit it when the browser is run in normal mode?
Like If I can think of something like that, (I do work in IT though) I'm sure there are p
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that Google would risk billions in fines, lawsuits and immense reputational damage, just to get some data that they could never actually use?
Because if they did use it to target ads people would quickly notice.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really think that Google would risk billions in fines, lawsuits and immense reputational damage, just to get some data that they could never actually use?
I don't know if they can't use it or can, but even if they are recording that data in incognito mode, who is to say their end user license agreement doesn't mention it in there and legally allow them to do so? Legal stuff gets worded very explicitly in very specific words for very specific reasons. It's hard for normal people sometimes to understand the implications is one part of it, the other part is it protects them legally. First, the fines wouldn't be that high. Companies have shown time and time again
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe even if the EULA mentions it, they have to get permission for each and every use individually, and it has to be opt-in. They can't force you to opt in if that use is not strictly necessary to provide the service.
So as I say, if they did do that the fines would be pretty painful.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. In incognito mode what you type into the address bar is not sent to Google. The search suggestions feature is disabled.
Well I suppose that's what this entire inquery is about.
I also wouldn't doubt them so easily, google has top tier programmers and some really intelligent guys. Unless you debug the entire program, they know some wise guy would use wireshark to pick out packets and data transfer to 'test' incognito mode. What's to say the browser doesn't store the data locally, and only transmit it when the browser is run in normal mode?
Google does hire smart programmers (I work for Google, and I'm consistently impressed with the quality of my peers, it's easily the best thing about working for Google). Google also hires smart lawyers. The smart programmers realize that being sneaky like that would be super risky, all the more so since it would be hard to implement it in Chrome without leaving tracks in the open source version, and if they didn't realize that, the lawyers would point it out to them. Actually, in practice, the smart privac
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with you about sneaky sneaky, but what if the legal wording of its use allows it?
I can't say I disagree with the political side of it either, but if it is in their end user agreement, they can easily and probably do have a clause that say google will collect information for marketing purposes except where explicitly stated otherwise.
They would easily say, we're not trying to hide the data we collect, but it just makes sense to send the data during normal operation. Then they can legally say "While i
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you about sneaky sneaky, but what if the legal wording of its use allows it?
This isn't about legality so much as it is about PR and future law. If someone could find something really fishy in Chrome (and the code is all there on your computer for a skilled person to look through!), it would generate a PR firestorm and possibly legislation.
They would easily say, we're not trying to hide the data we collect, but it just makes sense to send the data during normal operation. Then they can legally say "While in incognito mode, the browser does not send information to google."
There's no way that would pass the smell test. For what reason would it not make sense to send the data immediately?
Also, as Amimojo pointed out, why would Google want to collect information they can't use? Because he's right that as soon as
Re: (Score:1)
Even if you actually believe something funky is going on in semi-secret (which I think indicates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how software works)
I've been a network administrator for over 15 years, I've seen a lot of interesting behaviors from software, so I wouldn't make those assumptions. I also script in bash, powershell, write limited programs in C, C++, and Java.
There's no way that would pass the smell test. For what reason would it not make sense to send the data immediately?
I can come up with a lot of reasons on my own, and you could too I'm sure if you can as well understand software at all, but I don't expect you to provide information against your argument..
In fact, a significant amount of software just for optimization reasons will send data at specifi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Places activity will definitely be visible: Google servers for marketing information"
When you know people would be less comfortable with it if it just said "Entering do not save history locally mode" only.
Third party data brokers Google sells/rents info to
From there to data aggregation brokers with a profile on your web activity, political affiliation, spending, current location and historical movements (via phone data + car nav tracking), private message contents on social media platforms, dating website accounts, email communications if they pass through any 'free' service, etc
This may be sold or made available to government entities, your employer, prospective employers, your ex spouse, political oppone
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed] What third party data broker?
Why would Google sell your data when they can sell service based on your data and make a ton of money. In which way "data brokers" will benefit Google? They simply can't pay as much as it is worth to Google.
Data brokers can be good for smaller companies. Companies that can collect data but not make use of them, or those that can make use of data but not collect them, Google can do both and it is very profitable, they don't need a third party to take their margi
Porn mode (Score:4, Insightful)
Incognito mode should more properly be called "porn mode". It's purpose is to avoid leaving tracks on your device that your spouse or someone else with access to your device and/or account can use to see that you're watching porn (or what type of porn). You can generalize this to any other sort of web browsing you'd like to hide from everyone around you, but that's the limit of what you get.
And, frankly, I think Chrome spells it out pretty well. Here's what I see when I activate porn^H^H^H^H incognito mode on my phone (emphasis original):
Seems pretty clear to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Nailed it. It's private from your spouse or SO, not from any company or government that needs to get to you. This is adequate for most people.
Re: Porn mode (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol I'm not overly worried about my friends seeing spicy stuff on my computer. Ironically, I more typically use incognito mode to browse Amazon or other e-commerce sites when I'm just curious about a product. That way recommendations for it don't stalk me around the internet for the next year just because I looked at it ONCE.
Heh. I don't usually get stalked by product recommendations until after I've bought the product. At which point, I really don't care to see it any more. Case in point, I'm currently seeing ads for a SawStop router table and lift everywhere, which I bought two weeks ago. At least in this case I really like the product that I see all over the web.
If I have to see ads (and I do, because I'm not willing to pay for everything I look at and yet I still want lots of great content to be created), I'd really pref
Re: (Score:3)
"Websites you visit" including the 30 different locations the website loads content from, and before then Google will see what you type in the address bar as you type it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Websites you visit" including the 30 different locations the website loads content from, and before then Google will see what you type in the address bar as you type it.
Yep, that's what it says.
Incognito isn't Private. (Score:3)
Says Google. Sorry Google, but pushing someone onto a sword also isn't stabbing them.
It's very much fiddling with semantics that the 'common customers' that started this have a completely valid complaint about. As the judge also said.
Google promises a feature won't track you (Score:3)
and the wino begging down my street promises the money I'd give him is for food.
What are the misconceptions? (Score:2)
Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity
It then follows with a list of things that are and that are not visible, with a link to a detailed description. What else do people need? What do people expect? Do you have to run Tor to have "incognito mode"? What would be a better name? "Porn mode" is good not politically correct (and not the only use case), "ephemeral mode"?, "burner mode"?, "self-destructing session"?, ...
If it passes trial, it may create a huge precedent. Tesla Autopilot / Full Self Driving, "Unlimited" data plans, all the greenwashing
Assumptions are the... (Score:2)
I have always assumed that the incognito / porn / whaever mode in browsers is protecting
- your identity from the website,
- your surfing habits from being sent to and cross-linked by trackers or analytics sites,
- your browsing history from other users of the same computer (your spouse, kids, parents).
Should incognito mode protect your privacy from the browser vendor or the OS maker?
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
I Like Incognito Mode (Score:2)
It lets me get past certain "10 free articles per month" paywalls. Simply load the link in an incognito window, and every request is the first one you ever did.
Shitty writing (Score:2)
This reminds me of "you can have any color you want, as long as it's black." They shouldn't have prepended the "now you can browse privately" part. Instead of saying something you don't mean and then qualifying it, just don't fuck up in the first place. It's not that hard. IMHO any half-competent copy editor should have spotted this.
That said, it's just shitty writing, and if you power through the shit, Google ends up