So this lawsuit is just concern trolling? Nobody is actually upset about the feature itself, some people are just taking the worst faith interpretation that nobody irl actually has and pretending to be mad about it?
> So this lawsuit is just concern trolling? Nobody is actually upset about the feature itself, some people are just taking the worst faith interpretation that nobody irl actually has and pretending to be mad about it?
Websites mediate a significant part of how a significant chunk of the people in the world live a significant part of their lives. You and I know what incognito mode is and isn't, but can you seriously claim that, among a significant chunk of the population of the world, no reasonable person overestimates the privacy incognito mode offers?
A reasonable person without substantial technical knowledge could have mistaken beliefs about lots of Internet concepts, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that a browser UI needs teach all of them. Should the cache settings have a big banner warning you to disable caching entirely or accept that a clever website operator can extract certain information about your browsing history?
The standard is would a reasonable person and the answer is absolutely not. Among non techies people assume that Incognito/Private Browsing provides less protection than is actually offered. You go into private browsing when you don’t what sites you visit to show up in your browser history, that’s it.
> The standard is would a reasonable person and the answer is absolutely not. Among non techies people assume that Incognito/Private Browsing provides less protection than is actually offered. You go into private browsing when you don’t what sites you visit to show up in your browser history, that’s it.
You quote my referring to what a reasonable person would do, and then seem to be offering a rebuttal by saying that it's about what a reasonable person would do …? Anyway, I think we must just disagree on a reasonable person's expectations.
> You quote my referring to what a reasonable person would do, and then seem to be offering a rebuttal by saying that it's about what a reasonable person would do …?
Yes. What's confusing about that?
They didn't say it was wrong to talk about a reasonable person, or anything like that.
But you were applying the reasonable person test incorrectly. You don't make a pile of reasonable people, and then check if any of them are confused. You look at what a single median reasonable person would think, basically.
