To be fair nothing was stolen, the lawyers even admitted as much.
This is a user error problem caused by the moron in a hurry problem.
The warning on incognito mode both before and after the change was very explicit that it was local only. It was intended for people sharing a computer, not for privacy to anything you searched, external websites, etc
Below the warning even had examples over exactly what was and was not saved with it explicitly saying that external websites would be able to track and save your data including Google.
The change was to add that warning list to the initial warning itself because Google had assumed people would read the entire page. They did not.
Which means that those morons in a hurry who only skimmed misunderstood what incognito mode was for. Did not read the use case, the warning, the TOs, the manual, or any other information provided both explicitly or implicitly.
Hell even parted the argument of the lawyers was that this is a user issue and that Google had a responsibility to prevent people who were ignorant or in a hurry from misunderstanding. And while they made a good faith effort, it could have been better. Google being the large company is taking the fall for this more than anything but it is at the end of the day a user issue.
I don’t believe for a second that they are actually going to delete any data they stole from users.
Oops offshore backup mysteriously occurred.
Of course they will! First you make a copy, then you delete the copy. Contractual terms satisfied.
The raw data might be purged but no one talks about the ML modal that google trained with that data.
To be fair nothing was stolen, the lawyers even admitted as much.
This is a user error problem caused by the moron in a hurry problem.
The warning on incognito mode both before and after the change was very explicit that it was local only. It was intended for people sharing a computer, not for privacy to anything you searched, external websites, etc
Below the warning even had examples over exactly what was and was not saved with it explicitly saying that external websites would be able to track and save your data including Google.
The change was to add that warning list to the initial warning itself because Google had assumed people would read the entire page. They did not.
Which means that those morons in a hurry who only skimmed misunderstood what incognito mode was for. Did not read the use case, the warning, the TOs, the manual, or any other information provided both explicitly or implicitly.
Hell even parted the argument of the lawyers was that this is a user issue and that Google had a responsibility to prevent people who were ignorant or in a hurry from misunderstanding. And while they made a good faith effort, it could have been better. Google being the large company is taking the fall for this more than anything but it is at the end of the day a user issue.