![]() ![]() 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. As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information about your browsing activity during your session.No, it isn't. Incognito mode in Chrome gives you the choice to browse the internet without your activity being saved to your browser or device. We strongly dispute these claims and we will defend ourselves vigorously against them. Update 3/14 11AM ET: Google spokesperson José Castañeda told Engadget the company "strongly dispute" the claims, and that Incognito warns you sites might still track you. Few people read those agreements from start to finish, and that can cause problems when privacy is at stake. The complaint also serves as criticism of companies that bury important information in their terms of service. The lawsuit could force Google to more explicitly tell users what it does and doesn't collect. It's not clear the general public is aware of Incognito's true behavior, though. Incognito mode's limitations are well-known among enthusiasts - it's really there to keep sites out of your local search history and cookies, not to block all potentially identifying traffic.īy subscribing, you are agreeing to Engadget's Terms and Privacy Policy. Successful class actions frequently lead to payouts that represent a fraction of the damage to customers. It's unclear whether or not the lawsuit will succeed, let alone that there will be meaningful changes or compensation. It reportedly warned that Incognito "does not mean 'invisible'" and that sites could still see activity. The search giant had argued that users agreed to its privacy policy and thus knew Google was collecting data. The chief participants in the lawsuit had accused Google of misleading users, telling them their info was private even as it monitored their habits. ![]() ![]() Koh determined that Google "did not notify" users it was still collecting data while Incognito's privacy mode was active, giving the plaintiffs enough ground to move forward with their case. As Bloomberg reports, Judge Lucy Koh has denied Google's request to dismiss the class action case. ![]() Google now has no choice but to deal with a lawsuit over Incognito mode tracking. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |