Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data • Hacker News Board

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#191

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

coronadisaster wrote: post #151

shadowgovt wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow the number of people on this thread claiming websites should be able to opt people out of logging based on whether they’re using a “private window” (which websites should have absolutely no idea about) makes me question if I’m even on Hacker News. Especially since "Websites shouldn't be able to tell if you're in incognito mode" has been highlighted in the past as a privacy ask, yes. People can at least agree "w…

obviously you don't now what the current incognito mode means (it has nothing to do with what you tell remove servers)

Correct; it does not. Which is why steps were taken to minimize remote servers' ability to use secondary signals (such as access to localstore APIs) to make an educated guess about whether the user was operating in incognito mode.

It's not me who doesn't know how it works; it's the people who think "New York Times shouldn't be able to whine at you if you're in incognito mode to go buy a subscription" and "servers should be required to modify how they handle your traffic if you're in incognito mode" are compatible protocol features.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#192

Post by bryan_w » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

coronadisaster wrote: post #170

bryan_w wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So inform us, how does incognito mode work in your world.

it doesn't keep history on your personal computer (that's it)... it doesn't erase history on remote computers like some of you appear to think I think that it should do more, but it doesn't (a VPN or Tor would be nice in incog. mode)

Sorry, I think I might have been aggressively agreeing with you by mistake. We agree -- incognito mode is a client side thing

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#193

Post by shadowgovt » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

junon wrote: post #120

three_seagrass wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Firefox is already the defacto Tor browser?

It is for me. Tor runs as a daemon, then I have my Firefox proxy settings to always hit Tor. Onion addresses work, and Firefox refuses to connect if the Tor daemon isn't running. Paired with Firefox actually honoring my requests to purge all information upon exit (instead of chrome only "kind of" doing it), it certainly works out quite well for me.

How is the performance difference for accessing websites via Tor vs. accessing them directly?

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#194

Post by wegs » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #179

wegs wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite how the law works. If I tell you to get off of my property, and you stand on my lawn, you're trespassing, even if I didn't put up a military-grade wall. Or if I have a basic chain link fence, and you climb over it, you're clearly trespassing in situations where without the fence, if you were to incidentally walk across my lawn, you'd be okay. The point of digital trespass laws is very similar. Just b…

If there is a law against Google collecting analytics data, then it's going to be illegal whether in incognito mode or not. That would be the situation with trespassing. There's a law against it. But there is no such law against collecting browsing data. So there has to be some other legal theory under which Google would be liable. One example would be deceptive practices or fraud, where Google says one thing then do…

With trespassing, if I cross your lawn, I'm probably okay. If I cross your lawn and there's a "no trespassing" sign or a fence, I'm probably not okay. It's vague.

There are equivalent laws for technology. For example, you have the confusingly vague CFAA. If I've indicated to you that I don't want you grabbing files from my computer, and you do, you've likely broken it. It's even called digital trespass. On the other hand, if you have a public FTP server up, I can grab files. If you have a public FTP server up, and you've told me I'm not permitted to access it in person, or in an automated banner, or in an automated banner which my browser never shows me, things get legally complex.

Pretending "private browsing" or "incognito mode" doesn't act like such a sign isn't very honest. Google disclaims this information might be visible to web sites, which is honest, but most indications are given that it's intended to help screen some of that. Intentionally working around incognito mode is almost certainly at least somewhat illegal.

Re: Google sued for secretly amassing vast trove of user data

#195

Post by user00012-ab » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

> Google surreptitiously amasses billions of bits of information --every day -- about internet users even if they opt out of sharing their information, three consumers alleged in a proposed class action lawsuit.

a billion bits is only like 130Meg a day, seems like google is doing pretty good.