Chrome's Clear Browsing Data exempting Google Account
Chrome users who open the Clear Browsing Data prompt of the browser may have noticed a new "you won't be signed out of your Google Account" addendum to the Cookies and other site data clearing option recently.
The change, which seems to have gone live for most users with the release of Chrome 69 to the Stable channel.
Update: Google announced that the cookie clearing logic will include Google cookies again when it releases Chrome 70.
Only users who are signed in to a Google Account when they open the Clear Browsing Data prompt in the browser see the notification. Users who are not signed in won't see it.
Google introduced a new sign-in experience in Chrome 69 for the desktop. Users who sign in to any Google service on the Internet are signed in to Chrome as well. The same is true for users who sign in to Chrome as they are signed in to any Google service on the Internet automatically as well.
The company has been criticized heavily for the new experience by privacy advocates and some users. The behavioral change affects the Clear Browsing Data functionality of the browser.
Chrome users may use the shortcut Ctrl-Shift-Del to open the dialog or select Menu > More Tools > Clear Browsing Data instead.
Signed-in users get the "you won't be signed out of your Google Account" message while uses who are not signed in to a Google account won't get the notification.
What does it mean?
If you select to delete cookies and other site data, you stay signed in to the Google Account. Users who used the clear browsing option to clear all traces on a machine and sign out of all accounts automatically won't be able to do so anymore following the change.
Staying signed in means that the tie to the Google account is not destroyed. It is quite possible that this was Google's main intention from the get-go when it introduced the new sign-in experience in the Chrome browser.
In other words: clearing cookies in Chrome won't sign you out of any Google service on the Internet or in Chrome.
What can you do?
Users who are affected by this need to sign out of the Google Account in Google Chrome before they use the Clear Browsing Data dialog to delete cookies and other site data.
Some cookies are removed automatically that would otherwise remain in the Chrome browser.
Note that you can undo the sign-in experience change introduced in Chrome at this point. Google may remove the option from Chrome though eventually.
Now You: What is your take on this?
Reminds me of a quote from a famous Eagles rock song.
“You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!”
When I first saw this, I thought what a great idea? Then I remembered something. Cookies don’t get corrupted as much as they did in the 1990s. But it still happens. Most people don’t know how to repair them. I always just deleted them for the site I was at and logged in again to make new ones. How will we fix these cookies if they get corrupted? Will we have to completely reinstall Chrome?
Not that Mozilla is perfect by any means, but as the largest browser left that is available on all major PC and phone platforms (Windows, MacOS, Linux, Android, iOS [to the limited degree Apple will allow]), that is not directly tied into one of the major tech players trying to collect data on you that compromises your privacy to better target ads and/or to tie your into an overall ecosystem, it may be time for people on other major browsers to consider rallying around the last independent of note marketshare wise.
Of course, Mozilla has a knack for screwing things up, but right now they have a pretty good product, and a lot of privacy enhancing features that are either available on the current version of their browser, or that are being tested out on nightly and other alpha and beta builds for potential future inclusion.
That stupid Australis interface is gone, the tabs are squared once more.
Of course, there are other smaller browsers out there that have interesting things going- Vivaldi, Pale Moon, Waterfox, etc.. And it’s good that those options exist, too. The more options, the better.
My Android phone doesn’t even run Chrome. It’s disabled. I’ve got Chrome on Windows installed for one extension I use occasionally, but that’s it.
As long as people complain about Chrome, but keep using it as their primary browser, it’s going to get worse, not better, on the issues that bother people about it. If you want to have an impact rather than gradually adapting to each new change that outages you momentarily, until you are ready for the next one and go through that same cycle again and again- support another browser now. Make sure people see the Firefox user agent in their site logs.
Chrome is very close to having monopoly power on Windows. It has it on Android. And, of course, that leads to things like sites coded to the browser that won’t work in other browsers properly instead of to standards. And increasing whatever Chrome does becomes the standard, or at the defacto standard. At least one streaming service now actually says they only support Chrome on PC.
The only way to stop that is to switch. I’m not even sure that a Chromium-based browser necessarily does the trick. A different rendering engine is the only thing that is really going to force sites to code for everyone, and it’s going to have to have marketshare and grow. Firefox is in the best position to do that right now, but it needs to be supported by actual usage, or it’ll fade out of the picture.
Google is the Borg! (and… China JS..:)
munching snacks and watching as SkyNet incrementally boils the froggies…
need more control, get a cookie manager ext. (like Privacy Manager) & check n delete yourself.
That’s good. One of the main reasons I don’t use the clear cookies option is it always cleared my Google account, and then I had to sign back in, go through the whole 2 step security measure. Not that it was a real pain, but it was annoying. This is a great option now.
Time for another article on Iron? ;-)
You don’t need Iron. I suggest you try Brave browser which is based on Chrome, with all phoning to google removed. Another advantage is that you can support the content creators monthly.
@A
Brave browser has some built-in adblocker and tracker blocker and there is no popup blocker so you are still a victim of rogue popups.
uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes, Popup Blocker (Strict) allow you keep your browser a lot safer and in your control. But what Brave offers you is simply a subpar solution that lacks on all fronts:
Brave’s adblocker doesn’t block all ads
its tracking blocker does something, but you can’t really tell what
there is no popup blocker
And you can’t install extensions, because the Brave developers think they are bad for you.
Brave can go to hell.
what on earth? Brave doesn’t even let you install extensions?! I agree. Brave can go to hell.
@Weilan
I agree with you that Brave, in its current form is limited compared to the multiple addons with which you can do whatever you want. But don’t forget that in its actual implementation, Brave was build with HTML and has a JavaScript UI. The contributors to Brave are well aware of the limitations and that’s why they adopted pure Chromium as opposed to Muon, which is a more secure fork of Electron.
You can read more about the changes that are coming to Brave here: https://brave.com/development-plans-for-upcoming-release/
When the next version of Brave is released, you can do whatever you can do in Chrome and much more. If you are interested in the new version still in testing, you can download the next generation of Brave from here: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser
I’ll stay with SRWare Iron, no phoning home to Google and no other controversies either ;-)
@Emil
Controversies are unavoidable when you get at a certain point in the market. You will be targeted for any number of reasons. Don’t be afraid to try something new every now and then.
A couple thing to consider before switching to Brave:
1. Their long-term plan is to insert their own advertising in place of the advertising originally on the page. That’s been a public thing they’ve talked about since day one. So, in the end, you’ll be viewing ads on that platform, just not the ads that the sites you visit actually run that benefit them without Brave as a middle man.
2. Brave is owned by anti-gay person who’s spent big money in support of laws that restrict their rights and against changes that would expand them to parity with the rest of us.
–
I am not saying that either of these are necessarily absolute deal killers if our browser choices were more limited, but, fortunately, they are not. Similarly, each thing separately would bother me, but would be easier to overcome if it were the sole major negative associated with the browser- the combination, though, is hard to overcome.
Also, when we talk about privacy (Which is what the article was about- A new feature in Chrome that may reduce user privacy in some cases), there are better solutions to that than a browser who’s end game is to control all of the ads you see on the Internet through it’s browser and target them to you.
Yeah. I wouldn’t be giving money to a homophobic person like him
Get your facts straight about Eich: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2014/04/brendan-eich-nailed-for-his-generic-private-anti-gay-beliefs/
I think you may be misinformed. It’s true that Brave wants to insert their own advertising in the browser, but I see no problem with this as long as it is not being tracked by them (to protect your privacy) and can be turned off. I don’t know if you ever opened Brave one time, but there is an option to turn off all ads, like a normal adblock. Also, you can pay by crypto currency to support content creators so there is no need to see ads if you dislike them that much.
In regards to Brendan Eich being forced out as Mozilla’s chief executive and later establish Brave, I don’t agree with you. Brendan Eich didn’t even push his political preference onto Firefox, all he did was donate in an efforts to pass Proposition 8 in California in 2008, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. Which he did in his spare time, with his own money and has nothing to do with Firefox or Mozilla. Don’t forget, California is a leftist paradise. Is it morally acceptable to fire someone based on their ideology and to be replaced by someone with a different ideology, based on “inclusiveness and tolerance”?
I’ll give you another example. James Damore, ex-employee of Google was fired because he wrote a memorandum saying there are biological differences between a man and a woman. There are more cases like this in which conservatives were fired from their job and deplatformed because of the left leaning policies in Google and especially Youtube for content creators. Is this right in a normal society to fear for your job because you have different opinions than the colleges that you work with?
A more recent news is in regards to Linux kernel which is invaded by SJWs and their Code of Conduct. Basically, they are kicking out everyone being “offensive”, whatever that means and replacing them with minorities and women. These people don’t care about tech, just virtue signaling, even if it means literally ruining everything they touch. Where did we see that? Oh right, at Google, Microsoft and Mozilla. And all over Silicon Valley. You can read more about Linux kernel from here: https://voat.co/v/technology/2724885
In conclusion, I would rather use a software which has no political ideology inserted into it and the people that are working on it to be there ONLY BASED ON MERITOCRACY. No political view of any kind and no virtue signalling. A software is just that: it either works or it doesn’t.
Voat? Isn’t that an even more bigoted version of Reddit? You sound like the people you are defending. Hateful. You are a terrible person and I wish terrible things on you. No one will miss you. You sexist scumbag
@ Poopooracoocoo
LOL. Go back to your safe space snowflake.
I don’t understand why a personal attitude like “the anti gay person” should have any impact on selecting a web browser. We are humans, we have different views.