[ad_1]
Google has been waging a war against the abusive practice of tracking users on the Web even as it tries to protect and grow its advertising business, which has become synonymous with that. It has introduced new features in Chrome that disable harmful cookies, for example, but not everyone is convinced of its seemingly good intentions. One group, in fact, filed a lawsuit claiming that Google’s incognito mode is not what it appears to be, a lawsuit Google simply failed to get out of court.
Incognito mode, also known as safe browsing, also known as private browsing, has become a standard feature among web browsers that advertise some protection against tracking your activities on the web. In its most basic form, the feature means that the browser itself does not save your browsing history, cookies, or the data you enter. In other words, the browser itself won’t track you, but it’s what Chrome lets others do that has gotten Google into trouble.
Last June, three users filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Google still continues to track those users despite the promises contained in incognito mode. To be fair, incognito mode is not an “invisible mode,” as Google argues, and the new Chrome window that appears in that mode warns users that websites, as well as IT administrators and ISPs at work or school, they might still track you down. Those would be outside of Google’s direct control unless users use other Chrome or third-party protection features.
However, the picture gets a bit murky when you consider that many of these websites use Google services for those ads and analytics which, in turn, also give Google some of that user data anyway. At least that’s what the lawsuit accuses the search and advertising giant, and federal judge Lucy Koh of “Apple v Samsung” fame sided with the plaintiffs and ruled that Google will have to face the lawsuit.
Unsurprisingly, Google vigorously disputed those claims and says it will vigorously defend itself. That means the plaintiffs will face Google’s greatest legal and financial resources, despite this initial victory in their favor. The lawsuit seeks at least $ 5 billion.
