It is what it is
-
So even though Brave is made on a Google product, Google doesn't get the data? Is that what you're saying? Because Google is such an honest company, sure they have no interest in the data of other browser instances made with their platform. Right?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yes. That is in fact what I'm saying. Brave has built in blockers for ads, trackers, and cookies. It has a built-in VPN. It has a built-in Tor browser. It's default search engine is DDG instead of Google. Considering Firefox defaults to Google for searches, you're likely giving more data to Google through Firefox than you would using Brave.
-
Yes. That is in fact what I'm saying. Brave has built in blockers for ads, trackers, and cookies. It has a built-in VPN. It has a built-in Tor browser. It's default search engine is DDG instead of Google. Considering Firefox defaults to Google for searches, you're likely giving more data to Google through Firefox than you would using Brave.
You clearly have no knowledge on how browser instances work. Just because Brave has built-in stuff like ad blockers doesn't mean the Chromium platform isn't Google anymore and Google has no more access to the data. No matter the extra features it has. Using Chromium means sharing data with Google.
Why would using Firefox share more data with Google than a Chromium browser, when Firefox is the only alternative to Chromium, made by a different company and not at all affiliated with Google?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
The Google Incognito tab in any browser clarifies that while it prevents your browsing history from being saved on your device, it does not make your browsing completely private.
Websites you visit, your employer (if on a work network), and your internet service provider (ISP) can still track your online activity.
Hell it even has a link that leads directly to the privacy policy
https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/9845881?hl=en-GB
The only thing that shocks me is that no one ever reads it
-
hey before they do that, can i look through their files on me? theres some porn i havent been able to refind anywhere
There is a r/tipofmypenis for that
Maybe someone knows a Lemmy alternative
-
This post did not contain any content.
Incognito mode was always just to hide your local browser history. Think Google would NOT track you?
Do you have Google maps? They know where you are at all times.
-
Yes. That is in fact what I'm saying. Brave has built in blockers for ads, trackers, and cookies. It has a built-in VPN. It has a built-in Tor browser. It's default search engine is DDG instead of Google. Considering Firefox defaults to Google for searches, you're likely giving more data to Google through Firefox than you would using Brave.
It does have that, but don't for a minute think they actually control chromium. If Google wanted to they could make life very difficult for brave.
Currently brave still has support for manifest v2 but that will eventually be removed and the more brave diverges from the upstream the more work is required to keep it going.
-
You clearly have no knowledge on how browser instances work. Just because Brave has built-in stuff like ad blockers doesn't mean the Chromium platform isn't Google anymore and Google has no more access to the data. No matter the extra features it has. Using Chromium means sharing data with Google.
Why would using Firefox share more data with Google than a Chromium browser, when Firefox is the only alternative to Chromium, made by a different company and not at all affiliated with Google?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I'm not supporting brave here, but do you have any evidence that the open source Chromium browser sends data to Google in any situation?
The way I see it, Chromium is like android AOSP without Google apps, less functional but generally de-googled.I can't say I've reviewed every line of code in that huge project, but I'd be shocked if the rest of the open source community working on Chromium was willing to have tracking code in it or anything else which phones home to Google, even if the majority of the developers working on the open source project are Google engineers.
Ultimately, both Brave and Firefox are open source, so you can look through the code and verify for yourself whether either browser are doing something unethical.
This ungoogled-chromoim project is probably worth checking out, they maintain a patch set which explicitly removes the only things in chromium which send data to Google, which is pretty much just the web services for search bar autocomplete and DNS pre-fetching etc.
-
Man, even then it was clear what it was doing, are they supposed to list every single website you visit that might track you?
-
The Google Incognito tab in any browser clarifies that while it prevents your browsing history from being saved on your device, it does not make your browsing completely private.
Websites you visit, your employer (if on a work network), and your internet service provider (ISP) can still track your online activity.
Hell it even has a link that leads directly to the privacy policy
https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/9845881?hl=en-GB
The only thing that shocks me is that no one ever reads it
This was silently changed it used not to have the disclaimer sentence
-
It’s Google. If you are shocked by this, you deserve to be tracked.
That's simply not true. People can't be expected to know what's going on under the hood of services designed specifically to simplify things for non-technical users and conceal what's under the hood.
-
That's called victim blaming.
But yeah. I really hope people stop using Google products. Google is evil.
To be fair it is in this case the victims is more at fault then not for misusing, misunderstanding and not reading the terms of service or explicate use case.
Like this would be like getting mad at your doctor for keeping notes over you and sharing them with other doctors. But not your random friends or strangers.
Incognito mode has said it's always been local privacy only not that it doesn't track or record you, nor prevents others from doing so.
It's just turning off history basically.
-
and i'm pretty sure the browsers have been quite explicit about this for a long time now, but of course no one bothers to read "This won't change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google."
It's as far as I remember literally always said it's basically just turning off local history, and not for true privacy. The wording has changed over the years and frankly only become more explicated and clear about that fact.
This is a rare case of google NOT being the problem here. People are misusing a tool that has always been honest about itself.
-
Ah, good find. I just assumed it would have been explicit about it from the start
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Even before that change it's explicit about it... The change literally did not change any part of the text that tells you who can and are going to track you. They basically went from "this isn't real privacy" to screaming at your face cause apparently people can't read and are idiots.
This is a case of users misusing a tool and not reading. At best you can argue that google should have assumed it's users were stupid beyond measure from the start and had a tos so verbose that only someone missing a brain could misunderstand the point of the tool.
-
I mean, they called it "Incognito".
Incognito: having one's true identity concealed
If it doesn't conceal your identity, then that's pretty clearly misleading. They're not selling to experts, the users of this are laypeople. It's like if you sold a "waterproof phone" and the packaging all made it look like it could withstand water, but then when it got wet it broke and you were like "people just assumed it was waterproof, it's not our fault".
Sure experts could tell, and enthusiasts would read the expert opinions on it, but that's not something you should expect of laypeople considering how it is presented.It IS local incognito. By definition the name is accurate.
The wording on the warning both BEFORE AND AFTER the change says explicitly websites you visit, and anything external WILL still record and track you.
It said BEFORE AND AFTER that ONLY local things such as history omor cookies arnt saved.
It is 100% incognito. For the local browser. It warms BEFORE AND AFTER that it's not real privacy.
They changed the wording basically from an assumption people will read the examples given on the SAME page as the warning. To having the examples built into the warning.
Basically they assumed their users could read. They were wrong, people can't read. So they have to scream it now.
-
I don’t believe for a second that they are actually going to delete any data they stole from users.
To be fair nothing was stolen, the lawyers even admitted as much.
This is a user error problem caused by the moron in a hurry problem.
The warning on incognito mode both before and after the change was very explicit that it was local only. It was intended for people sharing a computer, not for privacy to anything you searched, external websites, etc
Below the warning even had examples over exactly what was and was not saved with it explicitly saying that external websites would be able to track and save your data including Google.
The change was to add that warning list to the initial warning itself because Google had assumed people would read the entire page. They did not.
Which means that those morons in a hurry who only skimmed misunderstood what incognito mode was for. Did not read the use case, the warning, the TOs, the manual, or any other information provided both explicitly or implicitly.
Hell even parted the argument of the lawyers was that this is a user issue and that Google had a responsibility to prevent people who were ignorant or in a hurry from misunderstanding. And while they made a good faith effort, it could have been better. Google being the large company is taking the fall for this more than anything but it is at the end of the day a user issue.
-
Incognito was never about hiding your data from Google, it was always about preventing random websites from getting your data
From day one it is explicitly said it doesn't do that. It's literally always been on the main blank tab page right below the warning over what it does.
How they even had to update the wording because of all of this because people didn't bother to read three bullet points
-
That was actually a result of this issue, where Google placed misleading statements in incognito and then proceeded to actively go around them.
It actually had bullet points below the initial warning that said websites could track you.
The big warning on top was fine before. It could have been worded better and the update made its wording better. But below that warning it's always had bullet points over examples of what it would and would not save in website tracking as well as browser data from searches could be saved. Sure, they didn't explicitly say Google would save your data, but Google being a web browser falls under that bullet point and Google being a website falls under that bullet point. A website falls under that bullet point.
This is people not being able to understand what words mean.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If you care about your privacy, don't use products from a company whose entire business model is built on invading your privacy.
-
Incognito mode was always just to hide your local browser history. Think Google would NOT track you?
Do you have Google maps? They know where you are at all times.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Do you have
Google maps?ANY UNMODIFIED GOOGLE CODE OR ANDROID PHONE, TABLET OR CHROMEBOOK IN THE HISTORY OF FOREVER?Then they know where you are at all times. I bet the Pixel users get gold stars. Oneplus have little pluses and custom rom users have
. -
It's as far as I remember literally always said it's basically just turning off local history, and not for true privacy. The wording has changed over the years and frankly only become more explicated and clear about that fact.
This is a rare case of google NOT being the problem here. People are misusing a tool that has always been honest about itself.
Google wasn't really explicit about that until the lawsuit.
