This isn't a foregone conclusion, but it is a reasonable one. The stakes are also far higher than then 5 billion damages award: Suppose the court held that any consent to tracking given while using incognito mode is inproperly obtained, if that choice of browser mode was detectable, or should have been detectable, to a reasonably prudent tracking provider. So while this isn't a home run for the plaintiffs, Google is going to have a harder time with that one than many would assume. Second, while Google obviously cannot be made responsible for whatever privacy circumvention technology entirely unrelated third party may choose to employ, in this particular scenario both sides are supplied through the same corporate structure. The basic problem for Google is going to be twofold:įirst, it is going to be hard to argue users freely gave their constent to being tracked, when they were already using incognito mode precisely because they did not wish to be tracked. Work in incognito - I just don't want my own cookies in those sessions and that's exactly what it does. So it's essential for me that cookies etc. Plus I use incognito often to log into a family member account - for example to help my parents with something. That wouldn't be much of an incognito mode then though. Plus there is no way of associating your standard profile with this temporary one.Īs others have said there is no way of stopping this without the browser sending some signal to the server "I am an incognito browser - treat me differently". But this temporary profile is gone once you close the session (because the cookies are all deleted). if you visit a Google site it will set a cookie (for the duration of your incognito session) and it might start serving you related ads on other sites (say if you search for tents on google at beginning of incognito session you might see related ad on New York times of they use google ads - all within the same session). The case was filed in the Northern District Court of California two plaintiffs are from California and the third resides in Florida.What Incognito is doing is treating you like a fresh account. The federal law allows users to sue if their private communications are being intercepted which the suit alleges Google does with browsing history. This lawsuit leverages California privacy laws and the Federal Wiretap Act, a new angle against Google’s data collection practices, to pursue damages. As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information about your browsing activity during your session.” Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda told The New York Times: “Incognito mode in Chrome gives you the choice to browse the internet without your activity being saved to your browser or device. Mainly through Google Analytics (utilized by 70 percent of websites and publishers) and Google Ad Manager, users’ activity can still be tracked and collected. The suit seeks a minimum of $5 billion in damages, but the final amount could be much larger with payments of at least $5,000 to each affected user - vaguely estimated as “millions” in the complaint.Īds and analytics are always watching - The lawsuit alleges that Google falsely tells users that private modes will hide their browsing activity in Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Safari, and Firefox browsers. “Google continues to track, collect, and identify their browsing data in real-time, in contravention of federal and state laws on wiretapping and in violation of consumers’ rights to privacy,” the complaint reads. A class-action suit filed on Tuesday accuses Google of tracking users in private browsing modes and misrepresenting the security of those modes, according to Reuters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |