Google chrome incognito lawsuit8/17/2023 ![]() ![]() When I did web sites while working, at a govt agency, we were required by IT standards to include Google Analytics javascript, but individual user details were well masked from us in reports. I'm pretty sure about what google-analytics and googletagmanager do I'm unsure about what gstatic does other than, probably, store web site objects. Most sites DON'T work if gstatic is disabled. Most sites work if google-analytics and googletagmanager are disabled. Your choice: use this site and be tracked, or leave." Opt-in is interpreted, simply, as: "We use cookies and other means to track you (optional: both on this site and everywhere else you visit). My security and peace of mind is more important than a dark mode or layout setting.Ĭlick to expand. I have no issues resetting options on websites. I can see applicable reasons for using such a feature, but I still firmly believe people need to stop relying on any information stored on their system once the browser is closed out if they're concerned about security.įirefox allows me to remove everything, including the browser cache (which has been problematic for a few years now), allowing me an "incognito" mode very time I restart my browser. Incognito mode was developed for users who need a quick visit to a website without giving up their cookie information in their regular use browser. Without giving up digital information, then "fingerprinting" is far more difficult to achieve. I'm no fan of incognito modes in browsers because they give a false sense of "expected" security to most users, regardless if tracking is possible.įor example, I firmly believe every single "incognito" mode should return identical information to web servers regardless what version of browser is being used. I have never experienced a situation a website knows of my past history starting a new browsing session in the 10+ years I've been using Firefox. I don't use incognito mode in any browser because I've set my settings to flush everything once the browser is closed. She's pretty astute when it comes to technology, and this is very likely what she saw in the complaint as well. Only Google can fix security issues in Chrome and that makes it less secure than if anyone could help them do that.Īll the large corporations know the benefits of open source since most of their infrastructure is built on it, but they still insist on making their "secret sauce" on top closed source which is worse for them since they cannot benefit from contributions from other corporations, the free and open source community and security researchers and worse for their users since there is no security in obscurity.Ĭlick to expand.The first comment which hits the point of the lawsuit directly - this is why Lucy Koh allowed the case to continue. Closed source software only rely on the good will, technical abilities and resources set aside for working on the software by the company that created it. Proper free and open source software is also developed in the open and anyone can submit bug reports, feature requests and if they have looked at the source code and found ways to improve it, patches that fix security holes, other bugs or improves features. Even those of us that cannot understand the source code still benefit from the ability of others to do so and verify that a free and open source program does what it is intended to do. This is of course why no one should use a closed source browser. And the reason is probably that they do not want people to know how much data the browser shares with its creator. It is built on top of free and open source Chromium, but it is definitely closed source. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |