
A Study on Private Browsing [pdf] - lainon
https://duckduckgo.com/download/Private_Browsing.pdf
======
forapurpose
From the key takeaways:

 _2\. However, 75.8 ± 2.2% of people who use Private Browsing incorrectly
identify the protection that it provides. As 66.5 ± 2.5% overestimate its
benefits, this leaves a majority of Private Browsing users exposed more than
they think they are.

3\. When people find out what private browsing actually does, 65.9 ± 2.4% feel
“Surprised”, “Misled”, “Confused” or “Vulnerable.” 64.0 ± 2.6% of people
believe their web browser should do more to protect their privacy, and 84.2 ±
1.9% are open to trying to a different major web browser if it would provide
more privacy protection_

Calling it Private Browsing is like installing antivirus on a computer and
telling end-users that it's a "secure computer"; it only addresses one threat
to privacy and not the largest ones.

When end users read "Private", they reasonably expect that it is private
overall, and it's not at all. In other contexts it would be a form of fraud on
consumers. I don't know how many end users are aware that there are serious
privacy threats, but few grasp what they are, understand the technology, and
can distinguish between the different kinds of threats, much less grasp what
Private Browsing really does and apply that knowledge. (Heck, I'm not even
100% sure of what Private Browsing does.)

It's unintentional I think - the terminology is by and for geeks. The browser
vendors really should change the term.

------
wakamoleguy
As much as I like DuckDuckGo and believe that privacy is a real concern, it's
always healthy to be skeptical of surveying techniques. For example, the
entire section on 'How do consumers react to private browsing knowledge?' is
based on the following question:

> Private Browsing mode only prevents your browser history from being recorded
> on your computer and does not offer any additional protection such as
> preventing the websites you visit from collecting your information (e.g.
> your searches on a search engine). How does that make you feel?

> Options: Surprised, Misled, Confused, Vulnerable, Neutral, Content

Given the structure of the question and ratio of positive to negative answer
options, I'm actually surprised that about a third of people were still
Neutral or Content.

~~~
inetknght
I'm not terribly surprised by it. There are a surprising number of people who
don't care if they're being tracked as long as they're not being tracked by
their family. The whole purpose of private browsing then becomes to hide their
porn history from family.

Anything else? Nothing to worry about if you do nothing wrong seems to be the
common saying.

------
apeace
> 35.7 ±2.5% believe that Private Browsing “Prevents search engines from
> knowing my searches.”

This doesn't seem too inaccurate.

When you search for something on the Google search engine using private
browsing, presumably you have not taken the time to login to your Google
account in the private window. Therefore your search won't be saved in your
account's search history. That's the behavior the user is expecting, and it's
what they mean when they say "prevents search engines from knowing my
searches".

It seems pedantic to point out that of course, technically, the search engine
knows your search.

How else would you advise a typical user to perform "embarrassing" searches?
Don't do it at all? Even if you use DuckDuckGo it will be in your browser
history.

~~~
inetknght
Not logging in to your Google account is not enough. It's already been
demonstrated that sufficient information is leaked by browsers to uniquely
identify without login information. Create a hash of IP address, computer
display information, operating system, and user-agent; and it's a pretty good
bet that hash would match your most recent _logged in_ session almost uniquely
(especially if you're not sharing your internet connection).

~~~
apeace
But Google doesn't fingerprint your browser and add those searches to your
account history.

What users care about is what's saved in their history. Many users probably
don't even understand the difference between browser history and Google
account search history.

But private browsing works for both (provided you don't login to your account
in the private window).

Users don't care if, theoretically, Google _could_ fingerprint their private
browsing session. Unless they care about ad tracking, which is why I only
addressed search history in my original comment.

~~~
inetknght
Unless you visit _only_ Google, I think your point's not as strong as you
think.

Yeah sure maybe Google doesn't fingerprint users but there's nothing stopping
other sites from doing it. Perhaps, for example, the site you're viewing in an
incognito session. _Advertisers_ , for example, would have quite an interest
in associating incognito sessions with normal sessions.

------
nicky0
Not one mention of porn in the whole report.

~~~
oliv__
I guess that's what "Embarrassing searches" would stand for.

------
j88439h84
What if "Private browsing" also automatically sent everything through a vpn?
Is there a way to make that work?

------
bgrohman
Time for a DuckDuckBrowser?

~~~
jszymborski
I would much rather if DuckDuckGo and Firefox became a tight Google-fighting
duo by focusing on search and browsing, respectively.

You wouldn't want Robin driving the bat-mobile now, would you?

~~~
bgrohman
Sounds good to me. (DuckDuckGo teaming up with Firefox, I mean.)

~~~
r3bl
At the end of 2014, both Apple and then Mozilla added DuckDuckGo to their
browser's list of search engines bundled by default.

This was the very first time _any_ meta search engine (search engine that
combines results from multiple search engines) was added to any of the most
popular browsers.

They've also added it to Firefox Focus (at least at the time when it was
released on Android).

So, it's fair to say that they have some sort of collaboration between them.
Wouldn't count on it getting more serious than that, but I would still love to
see it happen.

------
spking
Time to merge DDG and Brave.

