...I can't recall seeing a Web site that refused to work when accessed via Incognito mode.
I can't either, and moreover, I don't understand why they wouldn't work; how could the website even know you're in incognito mode?
I was under the impression incognition* happens after the fact. I.e. the incognito window behaves as normal, but then once the window is closed / program exited, it then deletes a bunch of stuff (that it normally would not, and unbeknownst to all the websites you visited in that incog session). That's why you can even use, e.g., gmail, with all its myriad cookies flying all over the place, while incognito. I wouldn't know about fb (I don't even OWN a tv...)
And yeah, maybe browsers normally send some flags over as well, but would those be distinguishable from normal do-not-track flags (that are sent in non-incognito sessions)? Maybe some websites are set up to break when they receive a do-not-track request (in which case see comments around here to the effect of **kbai**), but if so, probably the browsers could be tweaked (w/ extensions or whatever) to send no flags while incognito?
So would this qualify as perjury under the DMCA? (per 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), a takedown notice must be made "on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.")
My understanding is that, in the usual case, this section applies to those who assert someone else's copyright in a takedown notice (i.e. emphasis on "owner"). But just based on the text, it would seem to apply equally well when someone asserts a nonexistent copyright (i.e. emphasis on "right").
Slashdot Mirror
then it wasn't high enough.
...I can't recall seeing a Web site that refused to work when accessed via Incognito mode.
I can't either, and moreover, I don't understand why they wouldn't work; how could the website even know you're in incognito mode?
I was under the impression incognition* happens after the fact. I.e. the incognito window behaves as normal, but then once the window is closed / program exited, it then deletes a bunch of stuff (that it normally would not, and unbeknownst to all the websites you visited in that incog session). That's why you can even use, e.g., gmail, with all its myriad cookies flying all over the place, while incognito. I wouldn't know about fb (I don't even OWN a tv...)
And yeah, maybe browsers normally send some flags over as well, but would those be distinguishable from normal do-not-track flags (that are sent in non-incognito sessions)? Maybe some websites are set up to break when they receive a do-not-track request (in which case see comments around here to the effect of **kbai**), but if so, probably the browsers could be tweaked (w/ extensions or whatever) to send no flags while incognito?
*I demand this be a word
So would this qualify as perjury under the DMCA? (per 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), a takedown notice must be made "on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.")
My understanding is that, in the usual case, this section applies to those who assert someone else's copyright in a takedown notice (i.e. emphasis on "owner"). But just based on the text, it would seem to apply equally well when someone asserts a nonexistent copyright (i.e. emphasis on "right").