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

No, we need to stop doing illicit things online

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want people to know you're watching porn online, don't watch porn online. If you don't want people to know you're accessing illicit content online, don't access illicit content online. Don't have anything to hide and you won't have any problems. The paranoia is from perverts, criminals, and other losers who feel the need to access illicit things online that they don't want others to know about. Modify your own behavior and you'll have no problems with needing to keep secrets.

Re:No, we need to stop doing illicit things online

[BitterOak]

This may be good advice in a relatively free country where people are allowed to criticize their government as well as investigate bad behavior by those in power, but in many countries in the world people don't have those freedoms which we take for granted. People living in oppressive regimes may need to rely more on technological means to protect their rights to organize and to criticize their government. An essential part of a participatory democracy is that people can be critical of their government, and if we want more countries to follow that model, people need to be free to exchange ideas without fear of reprisal.

Re:No, we need to stop doing illicit things online

[KiloByte]

What's that "free country" you're talking about? While in countries other than North Korea, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia you can often get away with criticizing the government on superficial matters, there isn't a single country that won't punish you for revealing news that truly hurts those in power.

Case in point: Assange -- Sweden tries to pass as a free country. Or, show me those "free countries" supporting Snowden; Ecuador and Russia stepped up because of a grudge against USA rather than of good will.

Guys - I got this one

[Anonymous Coward]

How do Slashdot's readers browse?

Sat in our parents basements in our underwear.

And do you think we need a better private mode for web browsing?

Yes, my parents get suspicious when I lock the door.

Re:We dont need a better private mode--

[Voyager529]

Eternal September was the death of the internet. What we have now is a superhighway of advertisements directed into your eyeballs, and automated grabber arms reaching for your banking information.

In a somewhat-amusing irony, Usenet is much more usable now and has basically-no spam anymore.

This Article is Ignorant

[The Raven]

Chrome Incognito and FireFox's Private Browsing are functionally identical. The caveat that the author highlights is how the Internet works. Of course sites have a record of your visit... they have to, to feed you the page! The disclaimer is to make sure that people know Incognito mode is like wearing an Anonymous mask, not like being invisible. And if you go up to an ATM dressed like V, but get money out of your credit card, then obviously the bank knows who visited the ATM despite the mask.

This basic ignorance of how cookies work is pervasive.

Private browsing opens your browser in a blank-slate mode. Generally, no plugins, no cookies. That means Amazon doesn't know who you are, so you can't one-click buy. Your news-reader makes you log in again. It takes longer to access your email because Gmail makes you log in and re-affirm your authenticator. Your ad blocker is disabled. Your CSS fixing plugin is blocked.

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. They also have nefarious uses, but saying that the Internet should throw out all convenience to maximize security is ignorant of the reality that people will just switch to the more convenient browser.

What we need is not a better incognito mode, but for tech journalists to stop pontificating about technology they do not understand.

If you really want to improve your anonymity online there are plugins that allow you to whitelist 'safe' cookies, and trash or block all the others. That plus plugins to block third-party widgets allow you to get 99% of the functionality from the Internet with only 1% of the spying. But these plugins take work on your part, to identify what sites and cookies you trust. Most people are too lazy. And the browser has no way of knowing for you. For example, I may want Amazon to remember me so I can buy with one click... you may not because you don't trust Amazon's tracking of what products you look at. The browser shouldn't be deciding that for you, but making choices like that for every site is a pain few users will bother with.

Re:i use tor

[AmiMoJo]

Have you actually tried browser fingerprinting with the TOR Browser? If you set it up right (I recommend Tails) it doesn't work. It can't separate you from many, many other TOR Browser users.

Go try it right now, with the Trails live CD. They fixed this years ago.