{"id":20490,"date":"2022-10-27T14:30:04","date_gmt":"2022-10-27T22:30:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/2022\/10\/27\/news-14223\/"},"modified":"2022-10-27T14:30:04","modified_gmt":"2022-10-27T22:30:04","slug":"news-14223","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/2022\/10\/27\/news-14223\/","title":{"rendered":"Google execs knew 'Incognito mode' failed to protect privacy, suit claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

A federal judge in California is considering motions to dismiss a lawsuit against Google that alleges the company misled them into believing their privacy was being protected while using Incognito mode<\/a>\u00a0in the Chrome browser.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit, filed\u00a0in the Northern District Court of California by five users more than two years ago, is now awaiting a recent motion by those plaintiffs for two class-action certifications.<\/p>\n

The first would cover all Chrome users with a Google account who accessed a non-Google website containing Google tracking or advertising code and who were in \u201cIncognito mode\u201d; the second covers all\u00a0Safari, Edge, and Internet Explorer users with a Google account who accessed a non-Google website containing Google tracking or advertising code while in \u201cprivate browsing mode.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

According to court documents first\u00a0uncovered by Bloomberg<\/a>, Google employees joked about the browser\u2019s Incognito mode and how it didn’t really provide privacy; they also criticized the company for not doing more to provide users with the privacy they thought they had.<\/p>\n

“As the plaintiffs are fighting Google\u2019s cynical efforts to stall the production of relevant evidence, another hearing occurred on October 11, which could have major consequences for the lawsuit,” said a spokesperson for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP<\/a>, the law firm representing plaintiffs in the class-action suit. “The plaintiffs\u2019 motion for class certification was argued and they\u2019re currently awaiting a decision.”<\/p>\n

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will decide whether tens of millions of Incognito users can be grouped together to pursue statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, which could put the settlement north of $5 billion.<\/p>\n

The definition of the word \u201cincognito\u201d is to disguise or conceal one\u2019s identity.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Privacy settings in web browsers are intended remove local<\/em> traces of what websites a user visits, what they search for, and information they\u2019ve filled out in online forms. In simple terms, privacy modes like Incognito are expected to not track and save data about online \u00a0searches and websites users visit.<\/p>\n

Google also faces lawsuits related to user privacy from the Department of Justice and attorneys general\u00a0in several states<\/a>, including Texas, Washington, DC, and Washington state. Earlier this month, Google settled\u00a0a lawsuit filed by Arizona’s AG for $85 million<\/a>.<\/p>\n

“While AGs are going after Google for privacy issues, this is the main civil case around Google\u2019s incognito browser,” the spokesperson for Boies Schiller Flexner said.<\/p>\n

Originally\u00a0filed in June 2020<\/a>, the class-action lawsuit seeks at least $5 billion, accusing the Alphabet unit of surreptitiously collecting information<\/a> about what people view online and where they browse, despite using Incognito mode.\u00a0Lawyers for the plaintiffs say they have a large number of internal Google emails proving executives knew for years \u201cIncognito mode\u201d doesn\u2019t do what it claims.<\/p>\n

When a user chooses to use Incognito mode, Google\u2019s web browser is supposed to automatically delete<\/a> browsing history and cookies at the end of a session.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs, who are Google account holders, alleged the search engine collected their data and distributed and sold it for targeted advertising through a real-time bidding (RTB) system.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs allege that even in Incognito mode, Google can see what websites Chrome users visit and collect data \u201cthrough means that include Google Analytics, Google \u2018fingerprinting\u2019 techniques, concurrent Google applications and processes on a consumer\u2019s device,\u201d as well as Google\u2019s AdManager.<\/p>\n

Ad Manager is a Google service allowing businesses to\u00a0deliver and report\u00a0on a company\u2019s web, mobile, and video advertising<\/a>.<\/p>\n

According to the lawsuit, more than 70% of all online websites \u201cuse one or more of these Google services.\u201d Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that, whenever a user in private browsing mode visits a website that is running Google Analytics or Google Ad Manager<\/a>, Google\u2019s software scripts on the website “surreptitiously direct the user\u2019s browser to send a secret, separate message to Google\u2019s servers in California.\u201d<\/p>\n

Google learns exactly what content the user\u2019s browsing software was asking the website to display, and it also transmits a header containing the URL information of what the user has been viewing and requesting online. The device IP address, geolocation data and user ID are all tracked and recorded by Google, the lawsuit alleges. \u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cOnce collected, this mountain of data is analyzed to build digital dossiers on millions of consumers, in some cases identifying us by name, gender, age as well as the medical conditions and political issues we have researched online,\u201d the suit argues.<\/p>\n

In March 2021, a California judge denied 82 motions\u00a0by Google\u2019s lawyers<\/a>\u00a0to dismiss the lawsuit and ruled against the company<\/a>, allowing the lawsuit to go forward.<\/p>\n

In July, Google was ordered to pay\u00a0nearly $1 million<\/a>\u00a0in legal fees and costs as a penalty for not disclosing evidence in a timely manner with regard to the lawsuit.<\/p>\n

“This sort of rebuke from a court was unprecedented for Google, but apparently has not deterred the company from engaging in further discovery misconduct as it continues to block plaintiff\u2019s efforts to gather critical evidence,” the spokesperon for Boies Schiller Flexner said. “Plaintiffs have again motioned the court for an order compelling production of evidence, and seeking sanctions.”<\/p>\n

Google did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n

A Google spokesman\u00a0told the Washington Post<\/a> this week it has been upfront with users about what its Incognito mode offers for privacy and the plaintiffs in the case \u201chave purposely mischaracterized our statements.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jack Gold, principal analyst at J. Gold Associates, said Google makes the majority of its revenue tracking everyone and selling ad space.\u00a0\u201cIf they really create a fully private browsing experience, then the revenue stream goes away,\u201d he said. \u201cSo, I suspect there is a \u2018balancing act\u2019 going on internally as to where the borders are around privacy vs. tracking. No company builds a free browser without being able to generate revenues somehow.\u201d<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs in the case said they chose the “private browsing mode” to prevent others from learning what they\u2019re viewing \u201con the Internet.\u201d<\/p>\n

For example, users often enable private browsing mode in order to visit especially sensitive websites that may reveal things such as a user\u2019s dating history, sexual interests and\/or orientation, political or religious views, travel plans, or private plans for the future (e.g., purchasing of an engagement ring).<\/p>\n

\u201cI think the bottom line is for Google and other browsers \u2014 let the user beware,\u201d Gold said. \u201cYou have to trust the maker to take care of your privacy, but it\u2019s not always in their best interest to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.computerworld.com\/category\/security\/index.rss<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n
\n

A federal judge in California is considering motions to dismiss a lawsuit against Google that alleges the company misled them into believing their privacy was being protected while using Incognito mode<\/a>\u00a0in the Chrome browser.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit, filed\u00a0in the Northern District Court of California by five users more than two years ago, is now awaiting a recent motion by those plaintiffs for two class-action certifications.<\/p>\n

The first would cover all Chrome users with a Google account who accessed a non-Google website containing Google tracking or advertising code and who were in \u201cIncognito mode\u201d; the second covers all\u00a0Safari, Edge, and Internet Explorer users with a Google account who accessed a non-Google website containing Google tracking or advertising code while in \u201cprivate browsing mode.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

To read this article in full, please click here<\/a><\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"colormag_page_container_layout":"default_layout","colormag_page_sidebar_layout":"default_layout","footnotes":""},"categories":[11062,10643],"tags":[12014,10699,11063,1670,5897],"class_list":["post-20490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-computerworld","category-independent","tag-browsers","tag-chrome","tag-data-privacy","tag-google","tag-privacy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20490","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}