Google is tracking you even in incognito mode, new disclaimer is up
Google has updated Chrome’s Incognito warning to explicitly state that browsing in this mode does not stop websites or Google from collecting data, prompting renewed scrutiny of what “private” browsing really means. Commenters note that Incognito has always been mainly about not saving local history and cookies, but argue that Google’s branding, UI, and marketing created a reasonable expectation of wider privacy that was at odds with its tracking practices—hence a major lawsuit and settlement. Others point out that all browsers face similar technical limits on preventing server-side tracking, and that meaningful privacy requires additional tools like VPNs, anti-fingerprinting measures, or Tor.
What Incognito Mode Actually Does
- Many note Incognito/private mode has always been about local privacy: no saved history, cookies, or form data, and an “ephemeral” profile cleared on close.
- Several comments emphasize it never technically could hide activity from websites, ISPs, employers, or governments, since those see your IP and requests regardless.
User Misconceptions and Naming Issues
- Strong consensus that normal users often assume “Incognito” / “private” means anonymity from Google and other sites, not just from other users of the same device.
- The name, spy icon, and wording like “browse privately” are seen as misleading or at least ambiguous; suggestions include renaming to “temporary” or “ephemeral” mode.
- Some argue users should read the on-screen explanation and take responsibility; others counter that most people don’t understand remote vs local or tracking concepts.
Tracking Mechanisms and Limits
- Tracking in Incognito still possible via: IP, user agent, screen size, fonts, time zone, and other JS-accessible fingerprinting; cookies just reset per session.
- Some mention tools like EFF’s fingerprinting tests, anti-fingerprinting extensions, VPNs, and Tor as partial mitigations, but note no silver bullet.
Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Aspects
- The new disclaimer is tied by multiple commenters to the Brown v. Google lawsuit and settlement.
- Court documents quoted in the thread suggest judges saw a plausible case that Google’s framing of Incognito could mislead users about privacy from Google itself.
- Debate: some call the lawsuit silly because the technical limits were “obvious”; others say the marketing and UI deliberately fostered overconfidence and that matters legally.
- Discussion of Do Not Track: some want it auto-enabled in Incognito and legally enforced; others say unenforceable headers are ineffective “suggestions.”
Comparisons and Alternatives
- Firefox private windows are praised for clearer messaging (“this doesn’t make you anonymous”) and somewhat stronger tracking protections, though technically similar limits apply.
- Tor Browser is cited for stronger anonymity, with trade-offs.
- Some advocate de-Googling (Firefox, Mullvad/LibreWolf, GrapheneOS, Kagi, etc.), while others argue switching browsers doesn’t fundamentally solve cross-site tracking.
Broader Reactions
- Split between “nothing changed, just clearer wording” and “this exposes how pervasive and unavoidable Google’s tracking has become.”
- Underlying tension between ad-supported “free” services and meaningful privacy protections runs through the discussion.