• psmgx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      76
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      As someone else put it, it’s for making sure your wife doesn’t get suspicious of the weird ads you’re getting, and when she checks the browser history it’s clean.

      Meanwhile Google, your ISP, and the NSA all know you’re looking at freaky old lady bondage porn.

      • Gork@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes but I trust the NSA to safeguard the integrity of the National Dick Pic Database. I can’t say the same for my ISP.

        • psmgx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          8 months ago

          The NDPD is a strategic resource and there is little doubt it is guarded jealously by the boys at Ft. Meade

      • JDPoZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        I know this isn’t the point of your comment, but seeing “making sure your wife doesn’t get suspicious” reminded me that some people actually hide such things from their partner.

        I find it a pity that some feel the need to hide their browsing habits from their S.O.

        I feel lucky to have married a person who loves knowing all the depraved stuff I enjoy so they can incorporate it into what we enjoy together.

        Honesty and communication are the bedrock of any relationship. I understand not sharing everything with every friend or family member… but if you can’t be honest regarding what you like with the person you literally decided to partner with for the rest of your life with whom to have sex… then who else in the world can you truly be honest with?

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Except some sites seem to use your IP, so if you’re both using the same WiFi, you’re going to get ads for other party. And for anyone else who used the same WiFi, too

    • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      8 months ago

      I use it to get around website article limits when they try to force me to sign up.

      • JustUseMint@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Websites with actual web devs block and track usage with ip instead of cookies/cache, nothing a vpn can’t stop tho. More reliable to is to the way back machine on archive.org. Can also use a browsers reader mode to get around it too sometimes.

      • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        And like the traffic at home through Adguard Home I see logs. More competent networks elsewhere will certainly be able to see what you’re doing.

    • davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      They can’t even reliably see domains when you use HTTPS, because some IP addresses serve many domains.

      • dracs@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s not entirely true. It’s only very recently that browsers have started using a new system called Encrypted Client Hello which hides the domain of the request. Prior to this all requests needed too have the Host field unencrypted so the receiving server knows which certified to respond with. I imagine there’s still quite a few servers which don’t support the new setup still.

          • Tja@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I don’t know about that. Technically it wouldn’t be necessary but I can see providers limiting you to a single IP instead of a /64 and needing to do it anyway, because the tech exists anyway. Or for privacy reasons. There is IPv6 NAT, after all…

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Most ISPs offer IPv6 right now, and they tend to hand out at least a /64. Often as much as a /54.

              RIPE strongly discourages ISPs from handing out prefixes longer than /56: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/

              I don’t see carrier grade NAT ever being used for IPv6. The extra equipment for that makes the network more expensive, less reliable, and introduces extra latency.

              One thing ISPs are doing is still handing out dynamically assigned prefixes rather than static. Self hosting is still going to be a pain.

      • kn33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        They can still (mostly) sniff SNI for now which gives them a domain even when the IP isn’t unique.

        • davel@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s a good point. Almost everyone uses their ISP’s DNS.

        • rokzoi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Correct me if i am wrong but DNSSEC has nothing to do with encryption of your request. It is used to verify that the record you received is from the correct authority. Furthermore your DNS requests have to go through your ISP even if you don’t use their DNS server as it is your only connection to the Internet.

          The only thing you could do is encrypt the traffic somehow (dns over https exists), but then you have to trust that provider instead, and your ISP can still see the IP addresses you try to reach after you know them and might be able to still do a domain lookup using DNS if it is also configured to return the domain when looking up the IP. If they would put in the effort of course.

  • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Especially when you do this, considering a lot of privacy extensions are disabled by default in incognito mode (at least in FF), so there’s less blocking of tracking elements.

    (Also, unless you change your DNS provider or use a (proper) VPN, I believe your ISP sees everything no matter what, though I could be wrong about the latter.)

    On the other hand, if this is a woosh situation & it’s a joke, well, then, eh, I’ve seen funnier. ¯\_ (•_•) _/¯

  • fl42v@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    8 months ago

    Technically incorrect unless you use http for some weird reason. The ISP can see the domain only, and (afaiu) not even that if encrypted client hello is used. At least kinda: they still see the IP which is not always unique.

    • Papamousse@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes, this is why you should use DNS over TLS. My router signal to every DHCP client that it is the DNS resolver, and internally use DoT/dnssec to query IPs. It also intercepts every request on DNS port in case of some DNS are hard-coded on some devices.

      • FreeFacts@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        DNS over TLS won’t save you thanks to SNI. As there is a huge shortage of IPV4 addresses, same IP addresses serve multiple hostnames, and to provide a working encryption, TLS handshake includes the requested hostname in plain text so that SNI can be used to determine which certificate should be used. That plaintext hostname is something your ISP can easily log.

        Rule of thumb is, Https does not provide anonymity, only encryption.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    As soon as Chrome first launched incognito mode, it immediately felt like the “Alert Google to start tracking you” mode.

  • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The simple solution if you don’t want your history to be seen is to have one account per user on your computer.

    • hinterlufer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Doesn’t solve the autocomplete issue when you’re trying to show someone something. I also don’t get ads for things I searched for while in a private window. And don’t forget how useful it is when you’re logging into some of your accounts when it’s not your machine, or logging into two accounts at once.