Not so easy. It seems that major companies are on the offensive against privacy.
Google search, map and translate display a pop up. Youtube search displays two (!).
Bing translator is the most dishonest - for anything else than a trivial sentence, it requires a captcha to be completed, pretending that it detected abnormal traffic (I know it's a lie, because if I don't use private mode, it doesn't do this).
The services above essentially defeat address bar (keyword-based) searches.
It's interesting (and not in a good way) times. I've changed almost all the services I use, which is something I've never considered before. I have to say that there are valid alternatives, though.
What do you mean? It doesn't matter how many popups or CAPTCHAs the sites make you deal with: as long as you don't log in to your Google account, any searches you make with an incognito window shouldn't be associated with your Google identity. They'll be associated with your IP address (and of course browsers can in principle be fingerprinted, etc.)
If there's any reason to believe that Google tries to defeat incognito mode and associate that history with a particular Google account, I haven't heard it, and it seems really unlikely, given the things people are expected rely on incognito mode for.
I'm not concerned about the privacy, rather, that this is a strategy to attack it indirectly.
I believe that they're just trying to make life harder for those who browse in private mode, in order to push them to always stay logged in. After all, Google built a browser based on the concept of user being logged in (this was one of the primary reasons why I've moved from Chrome).
This is nothing new, as at least some news paper had explicitly rules against it, for a long time.
On an extreme and hopefully far fetched scenario, I image this becoming common practice, and Google says that you have only a certain amount of searches before you must log in. I think the current situation as a sort of middle ground (or step towards).
I imagine the captcha is to combat bots abusing the service.
> I know it's a lie, because if I don't use private mode, it doesn't do this
If you don't use incognito/private browsing then you have an ordinary-looking set of cookies, so it makes sense you wouldn't be challanged with a captcha.
The irony is that incongito looks the most distinct of anything because of that.
You'd think there'd be a plugin that gathers some common tracking cookies, and swaps them around with other users. So the adtech firms see a tangled mess of location/IP/interest data.
If the randomization is log enough, the cookies pollute the data while hopefully remaining "conventionally looking" enough that they won't be discarded outright.
> If you don't use incognito/private browsing then you have an ordinary-looking set of cookies, so it makes sense you wouldn't be challanged with a captcha.
Right. I find it very troubling (in a general sense; I don't doubt that there are technical grounds) though, that browsing in incognito/private mode is a flagged behavior.
Google search, map and translate display a pop up. Youtube search displays two (!).
Bing translator is the most dishonest - for anything else than a trivial sentence, it requires a captcha to be completed, pretending that it detected abnormal traffic (I know it's a lie, because if I don't use private mode, it doesn't do this).
The services above essentially defeat address bar (keyword-based) searches.
It's interesting (and not in a good way) times. I've changed almost all the services I use, which is something I've never considered before. I have to say that there are valid alternatives, though.