131–140 of 201 posts
Yes. I just open an incognito window in Chrome and go to www.instagram.com and then it prompts me to log in via a list of Instagram accounts I've ever logged in in the non-incognito Window.
If you use Chrome, did you really expect any kind of privacy to be respected?
Can this fight ever be won? If you've been browsing the internet for more than 5 minutes you already have cookies from some of the major ad networks. Therefore if you do not have cookies from the major ad networks, you're either a brand-new device or an incognito browser. All that is left to do is get in bed with the ad network to ask them if they have good cookies for this session. As it so happens most of the compa…
I don't, as I block all third party cookies. No exceptions.
Can this fight ever be won? If you've been browsing the internet for more than 5 minutes you already have cookies from some of the major ad networks. Therefore if you do not have cookies from the major ad networks, you're either a brand-new device or an incognito browser. All that is left to do is get in bed with the ad network to ask them if they have good cookies for this session. As it so happens most of the compa…
>I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation).
Can this fight ever be won? If you've been browsing the internet for more than 5 minutes you already have cookies from some of the major ad networks. Therefore if you do not have cookies from the major ad networks, you're either a brand-new device or an incognito browser. All that is left to do is get in bed with the ad network to ask them if they have good cookies for this session. As it so happens most of the compa…
>If you've been browsing the internet for more than 5 minutes you already have cookies from some of the major ad networks. I don't, as I block all third party cookies. No exceptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you've been browsing the internet for more than 5 minutes you already have cookies from some of the major ad networks. I don't, as I block all third party cookies. No exceptions.
Interesting. Are there any legitimate uses for third party cookies (i.e. functionality that you as the user actually care about) or are they only ever used for tracking?
You can check it yourself here: https://www.ziggogo.tv/
The dutch cable company 'Ziggo' (owned by Liberty Global) also does Incognito mode detection in their web-based tv player and does not allow streaming. https://imgur.com/a/TacdDRm You can check it yourself here: https://www.ziggogo.tv/
But that is another way in which newspaper sites could do this detection is they wanted to, send an HTML5 EME clearkey to a one pixel video in the corner and get back the error response.
I think Google are on to a complete loser here tbh, and I'm not sure why they're wasting development resource. As much as using incognito mode to bypass soft paywalls might be fun for a user, there's no real moral justification. There's no privacy issue here in a newspaper giving a clear and unambiguous statement before you enter that you've got to disable incognito, and a user can either choose or refuse to do it. It's probably the clearest consent screen in the world.
I’m a bit surprised Chrome developers went the route of an in memory filesystem instead of trying to sandbox and clear real disk access. Silently using up to 120MB without realizing sounds pretty bad.
The point of incognito was never to hide that fact from the sites you're visiting. The point was to not leave a trace on the machine you're doing it from. Basically, it's for porn, not news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if they do both, if the bots always follow what is entered in robots.txt and humans do not, it won’t be long before that’s the primary factor.
I've seen stuff in the robots.txt get crawled anyways if enough people link to it. In Google's results it will still only show up without any contextual information though.
Workaround for now: 1. Open the profile menu. (This is the icon in the top right, just to the left of the three vertical dots.) 2. Click "Manage people", click "Add person" (lower right). 3. Type "Darned Newspapers!" and click "Add". 4. When you get blocked, copy URL, use the profile menu to navigate to open a new "Darned Newspapers!" window, paste URL. It's a real profile, so it should behave quite closely and shoul…
Alternatively you could use Firefox's Container Tabs.