Not sure which news website I should be using for the link, sorry! I’m happy to change it if anyone has a better one.
Google agreed to destroy or de-identify billions of records of web browsing data collected when users were in its private browsing “Incognito mode,” according to a proposed class action settlement filed Monday.
The proposal is valued at $5 billion, according to Monday’s court filing, calculated by determining the value of data Google has stored and would be forced to destroy and the data it would be prevented from collecting. Google would need to address data collected in private browsing mode in December 2023 and earlier. Any data that is not outright deleted must be de-identified.
Sounds like a genuine April’s fools joke…
Well how generous of our overlords…
Hmm, it is nice to see an outcome from a lawsuit that is practical and not just a cost-of-doing-business fine.
But “de-identify” doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence… anonymized data can be de-anonymized pretty easily most of the time. Also have they kept accurate internal records on all the places pieces of that data have gone inside their various projects and systems? Who would be capable of verifying that it had all been deleted?
I think in European law, for data to be anonymous, not only there should be no personal identifying information but also there should be no identifiers that allow to link non personal data together to trace the behavior of a single person. https://www.edps.europa.eu/system/files/2021-04/21-04-27_aepd-edps_anonymisation_en_5.pdf
When the data is aggragated there’s no true anonymization:
https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/24/researchers-spotlight-the-lie-of-anonymous-data
https://www.fastcompany.com/90278465/sorry-your-data-can-still-be-identified-even-its-anonymized
Do you mean not aggregated? Do you mean aggregating different kinds of data, or do you mean grouping together the same data for a category?
I mean that when lots of data is compiled, you can remove specific identifiers such as names, emails, IP addresses, phone numbers, etc (anonymization) but it’s been demonstrated that it’s relatively easy to re-identify specific individuals from “anonymized” data.
I think this means you still have some identifier that allows to link those data to a single person. This is quite explicitly not considered anonymization by the gdpr.
I’ve verified throughout our fox network that there are no foxes in any henhouses at the moment. They’ve been instructed to take steps to ensure that no foxes end up in any henhouses accidentally going forward and the foxes tell me that they are truly sorry this time. Despite past reassurances of not being evil, they were in fact…evil. We are rolling out an internal audit system with the help of a 3rd party partner who owes us lots of stuff. We plan on letting the advocacy groups check out our henhouses as long as they agree to be bound by an NDA.
Are they pinky promising they deleted it? Then I totally trust them now…
why is incognito transmitting anything to anyone. Glad I switched to FF a while back.
deleted by creator
Incognito/private are a bad name. You should pretty much use this to not save history, or to log into a site without using saves credentials and assume it’s otherwise exactly the same as a normal browser session
Is that not how people have been using it?
Given the context of this thread, clearly not
I’m truly confused about what people expected.
It’s not exactly the same tho. At least in Firefox there were/are still quite a few differences. Notably experimental privacy features and anti-fingerprinting measures are enabled in private windows
Fair enough, but it should not be considered “incognito”
“Cookieless”. (Is that even accurate?)
I like cookieless, but there’s also the history saving part. So… “Forgetful” “Goldfish” “Uprooted”
in the case of google it seems they were collecting your data too.
firefox doesnt do this like google, even outside incognito.
Removed by mod
well i said they dont do it the same way. not nearly to the same extent.
what flags do you change?
Removed by mod
Hojestly I never interpreted it as anything other than this. It doesn’t save cookies or history. Obviously it doesn’t actually do anything to hide telemetry.
Why did you think it didn’t?
This would only be meaningful if it wasn’t collected in the first place.
And if it wasn’t a lie from the guys who already lied before.
After they’ve already benefitted by collating it.
Yep, even says in the article ‘destroy or de-identify’. So, they will summarize or transform/anonymize the data and just throw away the source.
not a nothing burger, but very close. de-identify means that they will absolutely not do it in an effective manner lol. sorry but this will affect very little in the longterm.
What “agrees”, they have a choice?
Let me get this straight, the data is worth $5 billion to Google, but they aren’t even necessarily deleting any of it?
Most people misunderstand what incognito mode means in the browser. It has nothing to do with anonymous browsing, incognito mode, the only thing it does is delete the browsing data that is saved in the browser and locally, but it does not prevent web pages and search engines from logging the activity on their servers. Extensions like SiteBleacher or Cookie Autodelete do exactly the same thing as browsing in incognito mode. If you want to browse anonymously, at least you can only do it with a VPN and certainly not using Google to search or using it’s services with an account.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
If approved by a California federal judge, the settlement could apply to 136 million Google users.
The 2020 lawsuit was brought by Google account holders who accused the company of illegally tracking their behavior through the private browsing feature.
Google would need to address data collected in private browsing mode in December 2023 and earlier.
Google spokesperson José Castañeda said in a statement that the company is “pleased to settle this lawsuit, which we always believed was meritless.” Though the plaintiffs valued the proposed settlement at $5 billion, which was the amount they originally sought in damages, Castañeda said that they are “receiving zero.” The settlement does not include damages for the class, though individuals can file claims.
Part of the agreement includes changes to how Google discloses the limits of its private browsing services, which the company has already begun rolling out on Chrome.
Individuals can still file claims for damages in California state court, according to the settlement terms.
The original article contains 382 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
yeah… sure…
