When Google users browse in "Incognito" mode, just how hidden is their activity? The Alphabet unit says activating the stealth mode in Chrome, or “private browsing” in other browsers, means the company won’t “remember your activity.”
But a judge with a history of taking Silicon Valley giants to task about their data collection raised doubts Thursday about whether Google is being as forthright as it needs to be about the personal information it’s collecting from users.
At a hearing Thursday in San Jose, California, US District Judge Lucy Koh said she’s “disturbed” by Google’s data collection practices in a class-action lawsuit that describes the company’s private browsing promises as a “ruse” and seeks $5,000 in damages for each of the millions of people whose privacy has been compromised since June of 2016.
Weighing Google’s attempt to get the suit dismissed, Ms Koh said she finds it “unusual” that the company would make the “extra effort” of data collection if it doesn’t use the information to build user profiles or targeted advertising.
Google has become a target antitrust complaints in the last year filed by state and federal officials as well as businesses accusing it of abusing its dominance in digital advertising and online search.
Ms Koh has a deeper history with the company as a vocal critic of its privacy policies. She forced Google in one notable case to disclose its scanning of emails to build profiles and target advertising.
In this case, Google is accused of relying on pieces of its code within websites that use its analytics and advertising services to scrape users’ supposedly private browsing history and send copies of it to Google’s servers.
Google makes it seem like private browsing mode gives users more control of their data, Amanda Bonn, a lawyer representing users, told Ms Koh. In reality, “Google is saying there’s basically very little you can do to prevent us from collecting your data, and that’s what you should assume we’re doing,” Ms Bonn said.
Mr Broome’s attempt to downplay the privacy concerns by pointing out that the federal court system’s own website uses Google services ended up backfiring.
The judge demanded an explanation “about what exactly Google does", while voicing concern that visitors to the court’s website are unwittingly disclosing information to the company.
“I want a declaration from Google on what information they’re collecting on users to the court’s website, and what that’s used for,” Ms Koh told the company’s lawyers.
The case is Brown v Google, 20-cv-03664, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).