I really do not like Google as a company, but this is one of those cases where I agree with them. It was always clear that websites could track you in incognito mode. Somehow people thinking that Google is not a website that can do that does not make it Google's fault. You still have to accept Google's cookie banner when opening the site in incognito, giving another indication they track you.
My understanding is that Google is tracking you across your browser sessions, even when you switch to incognito.
That’s problematic because Google (and others with such broad internet scope) tracks you regardless of whether you are interacting with Google services or not.
I don't believe this is true. In incognito mode you don't have the same gaia or dblck cookie ids. Your traffic is logged in icognito mode by Google but as a different user under a different identifier.
Now certain websites could use tracking methodologies based on ip address and device signatures to identify you as the same user and set a cookie identifying you as the same user for purposes like remarketing, but Google itself doesn't join this data from their own logs.
This announcement is just clarifying that Google does log data in icognito mode as do other websites. It doesn't say that Google joins your icognito session data with your non-icognito session data.
Google is incentivized to do “privacy theatre” and make sure your incognito session doesn’t show up as related to you even if the back-end systems have a clear association.
I don’t know the facts of Google’s systems either way, but I do know that absence of a visible join is not conclusive evidence that there is none.
I do know facts about there internal system. Internally, strict separation is taken very seriously and the logs are keyed by cookies with separate access and physical logs for different cookie spaces and no joining is done based on ip addresses and device signatures in these logs.
It would take a determined and malicious employee to subvert these controls and possibly require multiple employees to get by code reviews to do such.
That said, I can appreciate the skepticism an outsider might have about such claims.
But, I also disagree that Google is incentivized to do "privacy theater" as you call it. For one, many already assume the worst of Google and also such theater could open them up to major lawsuits.
One could make the case that a company like Apple has invested a lot more effort in "privacy theater".
Their probabilistic systems appear to use the ip address for anonymous targeting. For example, when you watch YouTube videos using normal browsing mode on one device, it is quite obvious that they influence the Google Ads on other devices in the same household.
That doesn't mean cookies or logs are joined, and the targeting is always anonymous, so it is less precise than when using the cookie ids.
Here are the facts https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/7440301 Yes they still record your activity under some faceless uuid when you browse incognito. No they don't tie it with your gmail unless you login to gmail. Yes, it doesn't matter, since lawyers and government can access everything Google has, and put the pieces together. Policy will likely change in the future to make your full history of both gmail and anonymous browsing activity freely available to the public too.
Of course it's going to happen. Read The New Digital Age by Eric Schmidt. He talks a lot about how all the information Google records about you is permanent, can never be deleted, and any generation of lawmakers can decide to do whatever they want with it. Upcoming generations are going to want as much data as possible to train AIs, especially as the GPUs needed to do that become more affordable. You know how historians are always talking about what famous dead people wrote in their diaries and personal letters? Don't think for a moment that future generations won't do this to you.
Your understanding is wrong. This is just an updated disclaimer that clarifies how it has always worked. Website owners have always had tricks to track you across sessions but Google is not granting itself any special privileges making this easier.
> My understanding is that Google is tracking you across your browser sessions, even when you switch to incognito.
Source? Also, can you clarify what exactly is mean by "tracking"? I would expect them to "track" me via anonymous cookies, but wouldn't expect them to tie my browsing history to my chrome login.
Yeah just watch your network traffic, browser open, no tabs open on google, amazon, facebook, no search bars set to google... tons of traffic to all 3.
Also, different icognito sessions will be logged as different users since all the cookies are deleted when you close all your incognito browsers.
So the TLDR, is that yes data is being logged for an incognito session by Google, but that data isn't tied together by Google across icognito sessions or icognito and non-icognito sessions.
Are you relatively tech savvy though? This was also obvious to me but I develop web apps for a living. It may likely not have been very obvious to others.
Tech unsavvy users probably don't know what that tracking thing is, that's if they are aware of its existance. In fact, even people who are familiar with computers often get it wrong.
Incognito mode always had a rather clear explanation of what it is about. It is somewhat complicated to those who are completely new to it, so I guess it can be misinterpreted, but I see nothing misleading in the explanation. Also, Chrome is not the only browser with that kind of feature and they are all essentially work and are presented the same way.
That some browsers tie it to some kind of tracker blocker actually make things even more confusing because on one hand you have "private/incognito/whatever" tell you that websites can still track you (because it is not what it is designed to do), and then, just below, you have a tracker blocker. So what is really blocked?
> It was always clear that websites could track you in incognito mode.
Why call it incognito mode, if not to imply you couldn't be tracked? It's absolutely not unreasonable for the average Chrome user to draw this conclusion.
Um isn't it completely obvious that this is about local history?
Let's say that you are using the internet to "buy your wife some jewellery". You want to be sure that she won't see your search history for "jewellery" or visiting "jewellery" websites.
It is perfect for that. Anyone who thought this somehow made them anonymous on the internet is probably the sort of person who thinks that wearing dark glasses or growing a beard is going to let them hide from the police too.
I don't think the average user understands that but for us more tech driven folks we've known this for ages and probably take it further with VPNs and not using Chrome at all for any serious privacy searching where we want to avoid cookies saving, advertiser fingerprinting, DNS and ISP tracking, etc.
I reckon that the average Incognito user is not even aware of "tracking" in the cookie/advertising way, and it's not why they use the mode. It's merely to not leave traces of their browsing history on their computer, which they may share with others.
To tech-savvy users it was always clear that sites would still be able to track you, whether or not you clear your local history and cookies. Cookies are just one, quite outdated at this point, way of tracking.
It’s still unclear whether google is trying to associate the activity in incognito mode with the activity in the logged in account, this ambiguity makes me distrust them as a company
I think the only reasonable thing to do in the face of this ambiguity is to assume the worst. Google have lawyers smart enough to write clear explanations of functionality if that would be to their benefit.
I think wording like "browse the web privately", the disguise icon, and the name of "incognito" can very easily suggest that the purpose is hiding your identity from websites.
Even the “buying gifts for your spouse in secret” case is thwarted, you may end up seeing retargeting ads or YT suggestions for the products you were looking at, in your main account.
What techies really don't seem to get is that this has nothing to do with whether Google can track you in incognito mode due to the technical details, along with every other website. Rather the problem is that Google (the company) is offering a product that is marketed based on protecting your privacy, but then Google (the same company) is continuing to track you despite use of that product! Firefox "private window" suffers from similar technical vulnerabilities (cf the additional lengths Tor Browser goes). But failing to be perfect and/or perfectly inform their users of the vulnerabilities doesn't create the same type of liability for Firefox, because there isn't another division of Firefox actively working to track users despite their use of private window!
A definition of the word "Incognito" is to: avoiding being recognized, by changing your name or appearance. So, the name of the mode itself implies you are not being tracked. Yes, those who understand technology recognize this, however those who are not in the know would likely assume it means something different than what it actually is. This is at minimum disingenuous, and at maximum fraudulent.
Google was being sued over this surreptitious data collection while in so-called "Incognito Mode". When it tried to have the case dismissed, it failed. (Judge Koh) Then it moved for summary judgment. That failed, too. (Judge Gonzalez-Rogers, who some may recognise form the Epic v Apple case). So just as we were getting ready to let a jury decide whether Google is at fault, Google pays off the plaintiffs' counsel. Why are these so-called "tech" companies willing pay anyone and everyone to prevent precedent from being created. Surely the precedent would work to protect them in the future, right? These meritless lawsuits over privacy would be nipped in the bud.
But Google will almost invariably stop these cases from going to trial by paying out settlements. Will we ever see Google go to trial for alleged wiretapping. No. But that's not because the cases get dismissed or because Google wins on summary judgment. Quite the opposite.
There were seven counts in this case. Google's request for summary judgment was denied on every single one. Even the usual defence of no injury-in-fact, e.g., no user lost money as a result of the surveillance, failed. "Tech" workers want to keep on pretending that every other person using a computer is an easily manipulated, ignorant fool. Good luck.
"The analysis starts with the Privacy Policy17 wherein Google advises at the outset and in bold, larger print:
When you use our services, youre trusting us with your information. We understand this is a big responsibility and work hard to protect your information and put you in control. (12/15/22 Google Privacy Policy.)
Immediately after, Google advises:
This Privacy Policy is meant to help you understand what information we collect, why we collect it, and how you can update manage, export, and delete your information.
...
We build a range of services that help millions of people daily to explore and interact with the world in new ways. Our services include:
Google apps, sites, and devices, like Search, YouTube, and Google Home Platforms like the Chrome browser and Android operating system Products that are integrated into third-party apps and sites, like ads and embedded Google Maps (Id.)
Notably, Incognito mode is not mentioned in this list of services. (Id.) Rather, Google shifts and in the next paragraph advises users: You can use our services in a variety of ways to manage your privacy. . . You can also choose to browse the web in a private mode, like Chrome Incognito mode. And across our services, you can adjust your privacy settings to control what we collect and how your information is used.18 (Id.) That is the only mention made of the privacy mode. The Privacy Policy is silent as to any data collection specific to private browsing mode. The Court rejects Googles argument that the Privacy Policy unambiguously discloses the at-issue data collection. The silence noted above combined with Googles surrounding statements regarding what it means to browse privately, means that a material dispute of fact remains regarding the scope of users consent. For instance, the way Google presents Incognito mode could be read to contradict its suggested interpretation of the Privacy Policy. When users first open Chrome, they are greeted by a bright, white screen and the colorful Google logo. When users navigate to Incognito mode, the screen goes from white to black, all text is rendered in gray, and users are met with a spy guy icon. (PAF 9.) They are told they have now gone Incognito, which, Google explains on the next line, means that they can browse privately, and other people who use this device wont see your activity. (PAF 30.) Plaintiffs have evidence to show that, internally, Google understood that the framing of the feature as Incognito (or, for other browsers, Private) made users overestimate privacy mode protections, including that Incognito hides browsing activity from Google. (Dkt. No. 924-36, Ex. 80; Dkt. No. 924-48, Ex. 44.)
Googles arguments otherwise do not change the result. Its reliance on this Courts finding in Calhoun is misplaced. That case did not involve Incognito mode. See Calhoun, 2022 WL 18107184, at *10. The reasoning therefore does not extend here. Next, Google argues that to obtain consent effectively, companies should not have to enumerate every mode, setting, or circumstance impactingor not impactingthat data collection. See Smith v. Facebook, Inc., 745 Fed. Appx 8, 9 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2018) (holding that Facebooks tracking of publicly available health data fell within the scope of users general consent to its data tracking and collection practices). It is true that such enumeration is not always necessary. The fundamental issue, however, returns to actual consent. Google chose both to use a general disclosure and yet promote the privacy afforded by Incognito over regular mode. Having made that distinction, Google itself created a situation where there is a dispute as to whether users consent of Googles data collection generally is substantially the same as their consent to the collection of their private browsing data in particular. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 892A (1979) 2(b), 4.
For those reasons, the Court DENIES Googles motion for summary judgment on the grounds of express consent."
I think minification should be done on another layer: HTTP compression and HTTP parallelization and that kind of stuff. And just don't make a complex web app, so it will be fast.
> just don't make a complex web app, so it will be fast
I never thought about that, I will just tell my customers that I removed all non-trivial features to make the app load faster. Also, there won't be any new features. I'll report back on how it goes.
For what it's worth, this sounds like the opposite of autism to me.
People with autism generally have less of a filter for familiar or ignorable stimuli. Where neurotypical people are generally able to tune out things they know or decide to not be relevant, people with autism have less ability to do that, and doing it is more draining for them.
If anything, it sounds more like ADHD to me. But armchair diagnosis is always fraught with peril, and the couple of dozen labels in the DSM-V are nowhere near enough to describe the millions of ways that brains can be different.
Just living in a big city for a long time can do this to you. After a while you just learn to tune most stuff out and engage "autopilot", for a lack of a better word.
Zero situational awareness. Completely unaware of the disgust being felt by his date seeing a person defecate. Completely unaware a plant has been in the room for two years. The feeling to post this on the internet with a “lessons learned” theme is kind of naively comical.
You mean you think he shouldn't have? I think it's a great post. It describes a noteworthy phenomenon and doesn't much editorialize. The mere fact that some people have verbal internal dialogs and others don't went extremely viral. People care about cognitive differences, and many of the differences we're surrounded by are not obvious.
That said, the commenter who describes not remembering that his relative Cindy had died has a pithier story.
"situational awareness" walking around places like skid row or the tenderloin is exactly not paying attention to the normal (for the area) things going on that aren't a threat, like a guy pooping on the sidewalk
In the telco world there is a distinction between cellular base stations that require an elaborate backend network and fairly new base stations that can work standalone because the "network" is built in.
> A survey conducted in the 1990s revealed some extraordinary facts: 90% of all American CEOs believed that selling a new product without advertisements would be impossible; 85% were convinced that advertisements persuade people into buying things they don’t need, and 51% — a majority — believed that advertisements persuaded people into buying things they don’t even want.¹
Uhh. So, this point to a book called Less is More — How Degrowth Will Save the World. In that book this statement is indeed made, and as a source it points to "Andre Gorz, Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology, trans. Chris Turner (London: Verso, 1994).". But in that book I can't find any reference to it. Was is completely made up?
Personally, I try to avoid characterizing anyone in politics as a "genuinely good person" or otherwise. I don't think it's a useful framing.
As humans, we gravitate toward personalities, identities, and stories, and these all matter for the people we keep close to us. In the public sphere, however, actions and legacy are what matter, for better or worse. For a major historical figure like Gorbachev, there is bound to be both better and worse, and to me the most valuable analysis is of those actions and legacy rather than personal character.
I think sincerity is a better measure. As leaders go, he is one of the lasts of his kind.
He was 14 when the war ended. “Our generation is the generation of wartime children,” he said. “It has burned us, leaving its mark both on our characters and on our view of the world.” -- Quote from the WAPO article on this.
Interesting reaction to the phrasing here. I read OP as framing Lincoln through the eyes of the people who suffered the consequences of his decisions. History is messy. Even unambiguous positives like ending slavery come with a ton of collateral damage. If that collateral damage is your husband or brother coming home in a pine box, you're likely to have a poor view of those who caused it.
A few questions to consider:
1) If Texas or California were to secede in 2023, should the rest of the United States declare war on them and force them to return to the union? What if that war costs the lives of 500k people? 1 million? How many deaths is too many deaths to maintain the geo-political status quo?
2) There are places in the world today where slavery or near-slavery like conditions are a fact of life. Does the United States have a moral obligation to intervene? US interventionism in recent decades has led to unaccountable suffering for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The American South suffered a similar fate during and after the civil war.
All that to say, big evils like slavery or Nazism tend to distort historical objectivity. Any cost seems small, any act defensible, as long at it helps end the big evil. Once a historical figure becomes canonized, the negative consequences of their actions get glossed over.
That’s some choice phrasing there. Mind explaining this framing? Pretty sure the only people I’ve seen use this phrasing were people who thought the confederacy and slavery were good things
The term "Civil War" affirms the United States' (i.e. Northern) viewpoint that the secessions of the southern states were illegitimate and the conflict that ensued was between citizens of the same country.
If you think that the secession of southern states was a legitimate act and the formation of the CSA was legitimate, you can't call it a civil war. It's a war between two sovereign states, of which the United States (i.e. "The North") would be seen as the aggressor, hence "War of Northern Aggression."
The motivation behind seceding was predominantly maintaining slavery, though then a deeper question might be, when is secession legitimate? And is there any justification that the United States might simply accept secession of a state from the Union?
> though then a deeper question might be, when is secession legitimate?
It's an entirely subjective question. Never, according to the state being seceded from or revolted against, and always, according to the secessionists and revolutionaries.
It's worth mentioning that the same American government that added the Second Amendment and spoke in florid prose about the blood-sacrifice of patriots and rebellion against governments also put down rebellions against itself.
>And is there any justification that the United States might simply accept secession of a state from the Union?
No. Cultural reasons aside, there is simply too much money and infrastructure at stake (to say nothing of political instability threatening its superpower status) for the US to be willing to lose even a single state.
If you are to suppose that the Confederate States of America were a legitimate, sovereign government of the Southern states, the term "War of Northern Aggression" makes more sense. They did not threaten to secede from the United States, they did secede from it. The United States taking action to take back control of the southern states could be viewed as "Northern Aggression."
Granted, it is a little odd considering that the Battle of Fort Sumter was initiated by the Confederates, though you could argue that attempting to resupply United States troops in Confederate territory as an act of aggression from the United States.
In either case, the argument seems to be that Gorbachev being responsible for the death of many lives doesn't discredit the notion that he could be a "genuinely good person" since there examples of people that have been responsible for the death of many that are generally viewed favorably, such as Lincoln.
It doesn't really make sense in that context. The Thirteen Colonies seceded from Great Britain, something not in dispute even in the UK. Great Britain sent troops into the United States to oppose the secession. But it's not referred to as "the War of British Aggression".
The only sense that singling out "Northern Aggression" makes sense in is perpetuating the myth that the slaveowners were the real victims.
> It doesn't really make sense in that context. The Thirteen Colonies seceded from Great Britain, something not in dispute even in the UK. Great Britain sent troops into the United States to oppose the secession. But it's not referred to as "the War of British Aggression".
You're making the mistake of assuming that every conflict must follow a strict naming convention when in reality it'd usually be called something different based on who you ask. The annexation of Texas by the United States resulted in what the United States calls the Mexican-American War, while Mexico refers to it as "U.S. Intervention in Mexico." I'd say that the "War of Northern Aggression" would pretty much exclusively used by people that view Southern secession from the United States as legitimate, but that doesn't mean it is used exclusively by your strawmen.
Just because there isn't a strict naming convention doesn't mean there isn't a longstanding convention in English-speaking countries of giving wars boring names based on the participants or theatre, even when it's absolutely unambiguous that the other side was the belligerent. Picking a ludicrously overblown name like "Northern Aggression" for a failed secession makes no sense in that context, but plenty of sense in Lost Cause victimhood narrative.
Which is why it was a name popularised by 1950s segregationists, not the original secessionists who may have rejected the notion that it was a "rebellion" or "civil" war, but talked about wars of "Separation" or "War for Independence" instead.
> Just because there isn't a strict naming convention doesn't mean there isn't a longstanding convention in English-speaking countries of giving wars boring names based on the participants or theatre
That is one name that is ascribed to a conflict, but we often have many. The Forgotten War is the Korean War, The Great War is World War 1, The American Civil War had many names.
> Picking a ludicrously overblown name like "Northern Aggression" for a failed secession makes no sense in that context, but plenty of sense in Lost Cause victimhood narrative.
How is it overblown? It's a descriptive title that is certainly controversial, but if you accept that particular viewpoint, it's simply descriptive.
> Which is why it was a name popularised by 1950s segregationists, not the original secessionists who may have rejected the notion that it was a "rebellion" or "civil" war, but talked about wars of "Separation" or "War for Independence" instead.
You can certainly find its usage linked to segregationists, but the entire basis for suggesting it wasn't used before the 1950's is that people couldn't find any evidence of the term being used prior to that in their google searches. It not showing up in term searches for archived OCRed newspapers is hardly evidence that it wasn't a term used before then. Regardless, that is beside the point. You're going out of you way to project meaning into it that isn't intrinsically there.
> How is it overblown? It's a descriptive title that is certainly controversial, but if you accept that particular viewpoint, it's simply descriptive.
Suuuure. Nothing remotely overblown about the sole popular name for conflict involving English speakers with "aggression" or similar being that one. Completely normal name for a war with no propaganda value for Lost Cause mythology, and just coincidental its print usage maps perfectly to Southern indignation at the Civil Rights movement.
I saw that Pizza Hut commercial earlier today and I can't stop thinking about it. It has so much going on. It's the victory of capitalism over Soviet communism, the rise of neoliberalism to global hegemony, and the "End of History" in the form of a 30-second ad for pizza.
It was also the start of the rush to full neo feudalism. Many conflate capitalism (oppossed) with what we had after the USSR got weak capitalism(unopossed). Turns out the remarkable archievments happen with systemic competition.
For the West he was a hero, for the Russians he was a disaster https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Russia/Death_rate/ . I don't blame Gorbachev for this. Just as in the case of Nikolai II Russian totalitarian state and lack of checks and balances washed out an inept person to rule the country.
The communist system is responsible for that, not Gorbachev. Centralized gov't controlled economies create corruption which results in ultimate economic collapse.
I partially wanted to express it with "totalitarian state and lack of checks and balances". However, I slightly disagree. Being an authoritarian ruler, Gorbachev had lots of power. It is proven by the fact that his reforms were radical and unsuccessful, and many of the problems that the Soviet union faced during its demise were exacerbated by them. Of course, the Soviet Union was to suffer some losses but they could have been milder. But may be you are 100% correct. I don't feel knowledgeable enough on the topic of late Soviet union to argue.
"Checks and balances" mean nothing unless you specify who's checking who. System where the military keeps a check on the president, or the king keeps a check on parliament, aren't really much better than the "checker" being in charge all the time. And systems based on mutual checking tend to just reel from one constitutional crisis to another.
The quality of implementation definitely matters, agreed. However, the Soviet states by and large didn't even have a shitty form in place, the party leader was an 'elected' dictator.
He also did a cameo in Faraway, So Close! (1993)[1] by Wim Wenders:
> Mikhail Gorbachev only appears because his secretary was familiar with the movies of Wim Wenders and was a great admirer. She talked Gorbachev into giving up a couple of hours to do the cameo as he was on a trip to Germany anyway.
Supported the annexation of Crimea. Organized highly corrupt privatization of Soviet Union assets. Robbed Soviet working class of their pensions. Handled Chernobyl by throwing people into the furnace and withholding information.
Not sure where you were back in the 80s, but he is one of the etalons of a horrible, corrupt politician.
Gorbachev good? You think sending tanks to Lithuania to kill people is what good person does? Or hiding everything about Chernobyl and not telling people what happened is also good person best move?
I wish I had it! I think I would have to travel to some physical German archive to lookup old magazines... Or maybe Apple itself has the original digital version in their archives.
Is it? I just checked https://hstspreload.org/, and it seems that twitter.com, facebook.com, outlook.com, cloudflare.com and gmail.com are all preloaded.
Or do you mean that downgrade attacks are still easy to deploy? Under what circumstances?
"yeah but you could serve a different page with the curl UA"
ok, then you just change about:config?