Do We Need A Better Private Browsing Mode? (networkworld.com)

Network World's Alan Zeichi recently argued "We need a better Private Browsing mode." Slashdot reader Miche67 writes: As this writer says, Chrome's Incognito Mode "doesn't offer strong protection at all." [Incognito mode "only prevents Chrome from saving your site visit activity. It won't stop other sources from seeing your browsing activity."] And Firefox's Private Browsing with Tracking Protection -- while stronger than Chrome -- is an all-or-nothing option. "You can't turn it off for sites you trust, but have it otherwise enabled by default."
The submission ends, "Every single link to non-trusted websites should open, by default, in a Private/Incognito window. C'mon, browser makers, get this done." This raises two questions. How do Slashdot's readers browse? And do you think we need a better private mode for web browsing?

Comments

Re:This Article is Ignorant

[Zumbs]

Private browsing opens your browser in a blank-slate mode. Generally, no plugins, no cookies.

Then you need a better browser :-) When I use Firefox for private browsing, NoScript, AdBlock and Ghostery are still very much active.

This is not how I want to use my computer, logging in to every single site every single time I visit despite being on a trusted device. We have plugins and cookies for a reason, because they make the Internet a more useful tool.

I mostly agree there. However, private browsing does allow me to start a session, e.g. to search for regular goods on the internet (because many webshops do require that I allow javascript to run), and clear any cookies and history during that session when I close it.