Even after reading this post, one should not bother to read their privacy policy. You should uninstall this Chrome thing completly.
Ironically, I was sitting here to download the beta. But I noticed a new post from Joe so I read it and am glad that I did.

I'm more bothered by the fact that even when I select English in the dropdown on the download page, Google in their ultimate wisdom still installs a Finnish language version of the browser for me.

Surely by selecting English in that dropdown I'm saying that I want an English version regardless of my windows locale?

Firefox and IE can do it. Why not Google?

The browser is alot of fun, looks and works great with Windows Vista. It's like the first real program that makes advantice of WPF, and the glass-like windows.

I wonder how much more we get tracked with this new browser... I mean, you already search with Google, and even on their site, you will be traced. You already do most social with a google login, or with a Windows Live login, who tells they don't track you with that?

I think the privacy reaction on this browser is a bit overreacted, cause Firefox is probably doing the same.

I've just got to excerpt from this document: "When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to Google so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for."

Can you say keylogger? What else could "the letters you type" mean?

---

I think you just got them wrong. Nothing is keylogged, they just say that the info in the address bar is sent. (When the user hits return, of course!)

Everyone is really getting up in arms over various privacy aspects of this browser. The source code is downloadable currently with build instructions for Linux (doesn't work yet) and Mac OSX (didn't check if this compiles.)

If people don't like certain aspects of the browser, it can edited out and recompiled. The source is open for users to change. So the users can easily morph this browser to a new beast that uses the best of Chrome and the best of Firefox (extensions,etc.) without the privacy concerns.

I don't think there is an uproar because the code is open source so anyone can recompile Chrome without the privacy restrictions. This is not an issue in the long term for that reason.

Hy!
I think caution is good, but to be paranoid isn't. Therefore a few comments for explanation:

About the "keylogger". So the firefox search bar is also a keylogger... (it also makes suggestions... guess how?)

About the unique application numbers.
Isn't this maybe a number per application version...? so that they know which version of chome you use, in order to provide updates, rather than a per person unique number.
And even if every installer, or worse, every installation had a unique number, how would they know that it's the same person that is using the browser (imagin an internet coffee...). So much for linking those "unique numbers" to your gmail/google id...

About "One new Chrome feature shows the six most popular pages when opening any new tab.":
So what, all browsers save a history! If you are frighetened that somebody will see that you've been watching porns disable it. And whether it's the link to porns or directly the picture isn't really a difference...

About new cookies: Well yes, this maybe is a tricky decision. But not allowing new cookies would make various sites unusable => incognito would not be used => is even worse.
I think the important thing about cookies is, that they don't stay over various sessions. And also with them: If you don't like cookies, disable them!

Don't misunderstand me, it's not that I'm a google fan, or that I wouldn't think google does evil things, but there is no sense in making an elefant out of mosquito.

So, don't worry, be happy!

As you said, most of the feature can be disabled, plus this browser is open source BSD license, so you can download the source code, pluck-out all these 'privacy-violating' related components and build a new version. There is no uproar because here we can do something about it, unlike with IE.

I am not going to waste time using a browser that has to be recompiled just to get the anti-privacy junk out of the code. I'll pass for now and stick with Firefox.

LOL Phil & M. Ibrahim!!!

"If people don't like certain aspects of the browser, it can edited out and recompiled. The source is open for users to change. So the users can easily morph this browser to a new beast that uses the best of Chrome and the best of Firefox (extensions,etc.) without the privacy concerns."

Because everyone has the knowledge to recode, debug and recompile an application. Why don't you do everyone a favour and create a truly private browser based on Chrome and distribute freely.

Joe raised some good points, and Phil & M. Ibrahim provided some accurate balance.

So relax, Rob. You raise a good point about the fact that open source doesn't automatically mean that people know or even care what it means. But out of the approximately 6,721,107,117 people in the world, a large number of them will.

I agree with M. Ibrahim. IE catches more flack because Microsoft is only one with legal access to the IE source code, while Firefox and now Chrome will catch less flack because the source is open and people WILL be able to do what they want with it.

I remember hearing people dismiss open source software because there was no one to sue if something goes wrong, which implies that one can sue Microsoft if something goes wrong with Microsoft software. So the uproar over IE falls in the category of "be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it".

Wow. I had my concerns about privacy when hearing google was making a browser, but you make the paranoid seem calm and trusting. Keylogger? In the url bar? Yes, that would make an awful lot of good. The url bar, which isn't just a url bar, needs to log the keys you press because it does auto-suggest as you type. It doesn't just suggest previously typed urls either, but searches and popular pages.

Connected to your gmail identity? Yeah sure, I suppose they could do that. Unless of course you choose not to use gmail - since the browser is completely open to use any products from any provider, not just google. If you want to incorporate it with yahoo or msn live and hotmail instead then that is fine with chrome.

Incognito mode is not about transmitting cookies or not, it is about local history not being saved. In other words, you mention teens getting caught surfing porn? Won't happen - they will just use incognito mode and their naughty habit will be undetectable from the computer they are on. If you don't like cookies then what are you still doing on the internet...? Every browser uses cookies, and of course every browser lets you set to refuse them if they are such a big deal for you.

And if you want to disable any of these features - which doesn't snoop on you as far as I've seen - then you need not go further than the settings page. Everything is fairly clearly marked, and no instructions should be needed for those paranoid enough to want to stop this behaviour.

After I uninstalled it, it left the updater and a bunch of DLLs in a hidden folder where it should not go to in the first place. I won't use it again until they change such obnoxious behavior.

Big Brother Google is in the business of collecting personal information for advertising purposes. I'm not about to install any of their software on my PC.

Joe, open your cookies and look for one by google.com. The one called SID, mine expires 2038 (don't even know if I'll be alive by then). When does your's expire? Did you accept a privacy policy when you searched with Google? Can you imagine all the possible uses of that SID with all those great sites using Google Analytics?

What you mention has been going on for quite some time. To worry about it is to a) believe there is something wrongful about our browsing habits or b) we don't live in a true democracy. So you either change your browsing habits or your government, but neither of which is solved by banning the usage of such IDs.

You have to be kidding me...

After using Chrome for hours on end since its inception, and the scrutiny I normally have for any program running on my production computer I must say that other browsers are in for a battle.

Stable as far as I can see, the task manager is smart, separate processes are smarter, uses WPF better than MS does (except for WMP11, but still crashes...), New Page startup page is genius... There are at least ten different things positive - two that are quirks, but at least with plugins can be solved.

Since the world and advertising is inextricably linked, I understand some info can be collected, which even operating systems have been known to do, at least I'm getting a free product that I sue daily, based on Open Source standards, renders VERY well (much better than in IE7 - why doesn't "(BR)" friggin work in rendering a page?), and has the ability TO SHUT IT OFF, unlike some OS providers' products.

Please, if you don't want to use the product, I think you have a choice of browser, but don't be like the group who didn't USE Vista, but bad mouthed the damn thing, until they ACTUALLY used the product.

Chrome works the best for right now - a few more options and IE's pie will whittle down to 30-35%. Now if they can use Chrome to introduce a type of "in the clouds" OS, I'd would be immensely impressed.

@ceelow

"Please, if you don't want to use the product, I think you have a choice of browser, but don't be like the group who didn't USE Vista, but bad mouthed the damn thing, until they ACTUALLY used the product."

Excellent point made -- Hence the Mojave Experiment.

I just downloaded the new Chrome on my Vista test machine and noticed the "intelli-sense" in the tool bar.

Running the Symantec Corporation's EndPoint Security I noticed after not accepting any cookies at all, First Party or Third Party, a very interesting thing occurred after deleting any cookies I had in Cache. I was receiving a firewall notification, an IP address that was attempting to gain access. The IP led right back to a Google server.

Watching this attempt, and configuring my Firewall carefully, I can see that Chrome was attempting to phone home. In a course of a couple of minutes, I noticed that it, Chrome tried 15 times. What was it trying to send home?

I don't know, could be anything. I also noticed that Google has attempted according to my log, 18 times since then. It could be harmless, it could be nefarious.

I certainly do not get anything like this from Firefox. I suppose, I should be asking Google directly about this need for the Browser to phone home. One thing, it is costing CPU cycles by triggering EndPoint. Certainly not enough to cause me any grief, after all, it's a test machine. For the record, any and all session variables are also disabled.

As for the Browser itself. I just begin testing, so I will keep my comments to myself about it, but I had to let everyone know that it seems that its trying to phone home, and the Mother Ship trying to make contact.

Am I paranoid?

No, I've noticed this. Does it hamper the browser, I don't think so, everything "seems" to work fine without making contact.

I think, like there is a CentOS version of RedHat that doesn't require signing up to the RedHat network or anything, there will be an organization of volunteers that releases a Chrome version that doesn't send anything back to Google and is independent of all the other Google businesses. So its not like people need to hack the code themselves, just wait for the CentOS type version of Chrome and then use that instead. Will probably be quite good.

@smits08

Good thought...

"DoS vulnerability hits Google’s Chrome, crashes with all tabs... An issue exists in how chrome behaves with undefined-handlers in chrome.dll version 0.2.149.27.

A crash can result without user interaction. When a user is made to visit a malicious link, which has an undefined handler followed by a ’special’ character, the chrome crashes with a Google Chrome message window 'Whoa! Google Chrome has crashed. Restart now?'

It crashes on 'int 3' at 0×01002FF3 as an exception/trap, followed by 'POP EBP' instruction when pointed out by the EIP register at 0×01002FF4.'" From ZDNet

Thanks Joe, and Douglas Taylor, for talking about this. I use (and recommend) Firefox with "noscript", and it seems that about half of the pages I visit on the Internet want to run some GoogleAnalytics" cross site javascript.

I've banned it, of course. And I will be warning people off of "Chrome", just as I now warn them off of Google's "Personal Health Record" offering for the same reason-- because of data privacy defects. And you're all absolutely right about the market-- functioning as a direct competitor, and "stealing away" key personnel such as Ben Goodger, the relationship between Google and Mozilla is looking strained.

Thanks again! BTW, on an unrelated topic, I like the choice of banning all posts containing vee-see-ess-why. This thread of comments is e DELIGHTFULLY clean and relevant to Chrome, it looks like you're already doing this. :))

Kinda weird that Google doesn't support Linux, given that they themselves run 100,000+ boxes on such software.

I think that the following post from Matt Cutts address these concerns quite well:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication/

* "Kinda weird that Google doesn't support Linux"

Well, it is their very first release of the beta. And they know which desktop OS has over 90% market share. ;-) But from what others have said and from what I've seen for myself, support for Linux and Apple is not too far away.

I got the impression that this wasn't bad for a 1st-day release. It takes a lot of guts to release a complex client application so early, warts and all. First impressions last a long time.

(And I echo your thanks on the unrelated topic!)

Mark: Thanks for the link. It helps clear up a lot of impressions, and also (for the skeptics) helps to know more of the questions that need to be asked when looking at the code itself.

What we have here is a beta browser that outperforms every other browser out there. Does it have issues? Of course...it's a beta. Will those issues be hammered out by the time it gets released as production code? Probably. Should you use any beta software in a production environment? No. And that includes beta software from ANY vendor including Microsoft.

Excellent Link Mark.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/technology/personaltech/03pogue.html?_r=1&oref=slogi
Serious Potential in Google’s Browser

That’s a no and a no. Chrome is open-source, meaning that its code is available to everyone for inspection or improvement — even to its rivals. That’s a huge, promising twist that ought to shut up the conspiracy theorists.

For now, it’s best to think of Chrome as exactly what it purports to be: a promising, modern, streamlined, nonbloated, very secure alternative to today’s browsers. You should do exactly what Microsoft, Apple and the Firefox folks will all be doing: try it out and keep your eye on it.

--------
Chrome really hurts to Microsoft

w.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/09/03/oracle-caquires-clearapp
CONVICTED MONOPOLIST, Microsoft has decided that Google is an evil empire and its planning an anti-trust action over the search outfit's new web browser.

Chrome was released yesterday and instead of making added improvements to its IE8, Microsoft has decided that it is better to fight Google in the courts.

Volish insiders claim that Redmond is looking closely at whether Google oversteps any legal boundaries with the way it links its browser, its core search engine and its new office software.

Microsoft has had a lot of experience in anti-trust cases. It has been taken to the cleaners in anti-trust cases across the world.
Now it seems to think that it can use that same weapon against Google
-------------

now i'm worried... who can we really trust in?!?

Speaking of chrome, This reminds me that i was going to polish the metal plate in my head.

Quoting Joe Willcox;
"I've just got to excerpt from this document: "When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to Google so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for."

Can you say keylogger? What else could "the letters you type" mean?"
----------------------------------------------------
Joe, just curious, what do you think would happen if you just used google search from any other browser? About the same thing I expect. What if you used MS Live search? The same thing plus more draconian big brother record keeping. They all keep records, some longer than others. In the case of MS, those records maybe more open to sell or just release than say google. Compared to Microsoft Live/MSN, Google is still the better choice if you value your privacy.

Has anyone downloaded the code and began stepping through it yet?

Just wondering...

Least with Open Source, one can do these things.

To briefly answer your question, I downloaded the 400MB compressed tarball from the following URL:

build.chromium.org/buildbot/archives/chromium.tgz

This decompresses to a 1.6GB tar file. From there, I started looking at the source.

My first impressions: This is beautiful C++ code! It looks carefully crafted by experienced top-notch developers.

The size is neither here nor there, as they say. That 1.6GB is basically twice what the code really is; the .svn directories contain the local Subversion working copies. Apparently, the tar file reproduces the full local Subversion working copy to reduce the initial load of a full checkout while still giving you a controlled code base to work with. Very nice!!!

The /chromium/src/base/basictypes.h header file is well documented and has a lot of very nice utility constructs in it. Some of these strategic design decisions are ones I've been doing for 10 years, while others are new (to me) and really cool ideas. (In other words, it's a nice complement from Google-class developers.)

There is a minimum of #ifdef for Windows/Linux/etc platform-specific code. As with my own product's code base, this strategy yields a code base that, once working on multiple platforms, is relatively easy to keep working on those platforms. So that aspect appears very promising.

I didn't try to build it: The instructions state that the code builds on Linux but only the tests pass; the Chrome browser itself won't run quite yet.

But that's OK for now: I don't have that much time to divert to this. But what I have seen is a joy to behold.

Google's Chrom is the first in what will become a flurry of cross-platform containers for web applications.

The current minimal operations set will expand and evolve just as any software will, but, with Google's resources, those evolutions will come as leaps and not as bumps.

Of course, the argument will center on whether or not Chrome is an "operating system", but it's quite easy to see Chrome is moving into position to become a carrier for operating systems and applications alike.

Vista was supposed to be a web platform before having the capabilities whacked out of Longhorn. The question is now whether Microsoft will have the foresight to extend IE to accomplish the same things Chrome is destined to serve.

@Douglas S. Taylor:
Wow! The tar file's extracted image contains the .svn subdirectories. So from my desktop Linux system, I can directly update this image from their Subversion repository! Since my previous post, there were 92 files updated. Here's a snippet of the command and its output:

xxxxx@blacksheep:/opt/build/Chrome/chromium/src$ svn update
U webkit/webkit.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj
U webkit/port/platform/graphics/svg/SVGPaintServerGradientSkia.cpp
... (lines deleted to save space on Joe's blog)
U base/message_loop.h
A base/thread_local.h
U base/SConscript
U base/time_unittest.cc
U base/timer.cc
A base/thread_local_posix.cc
U base/build/base.vcproj
U base/build/base_unittests.vcproj
U base/thread.cc
A base/thread_local_win.cc
U base/idletimer_unittest.cc
A base/thread_local_unittest.cc
U base/thread.h
U base/base.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj
U base/timer_unittest.cc
U base/timer.h
... (lines deleted to save space on Joe's blog)
U chrome/tools/build/win/test_shell_tests.vsprops
Updated to revision 1719.

Too cool!!!

@Philosopher

I downloaded the code late last night and running through. You're right about one thing, takes up some space, but that's okay -- Uncompiled code, what does one expect?

Seems by the looks of things, the activities of people working on it, there's been some updates, fixes, or I should say, some things people noticed and recommended fixes. I am sure this trend will continue and it seems that Google's development group is taking an active look at all of these recommendations.

I wonder why Google chose WebKit as the engine? I mean, not a bad thing, just wondering. I do like the "Intelli-Sense", but all the browsers, Mozilla, FF, IE, and my new favorite, Opera 9.05.

Last night, while downloading the source code and getting ready to take a look at it, though I am not a C++ expert, but what I can understand thus far, there is some pretty nifty things, and I agree, due to my limited experience, I learned some new things looking at it -- But, I'm no expert -- Anyway, I ran across a wonderful site comparing the major browsers, and the site did say that it will be generating a report by next week to include its findings on Chrome. While here, I read up on comparing FF and Opera.

Mind you, FF 3 "was my favorite" nimble browser especially with all the add-on features. Also, it's still a damned good one. However, after reading the comparisions, I decided that Opera may fit my specific needs better -- So, WTF??

I am giving it a try, and so far, "Daddy Likes, Daddy Likes..."

It will be wonderful to see Chrome evolve, and I can see by the interests from developers, it certainly will.

I certainly will not call it an "OS", I don't think that's a proper description. Nonetheless, more like a powerful shell to be that will have the capability to run some of Google's exisiting and future applications -- Just a thought.

Having said this, I wonder "when" Google will create their own proprietary version to run all these new nifty things in the future?

@ Douglas S. Taylor

Douglas, is what you're posting a result of your own concerns about Google Chrome? Or are you posting as an obligation to someone else?

Chrome acquired a 1% share of the browser market in 24 hours. Are you concerned about that? Or is the company paying you to post the one that's really concerned.

I'm asking so I can gauge the veracity of your future posts on the subject.

Joe Wilcox;

Why must others and to include myself be subjected to this kind of harrasment by people such as "porunto?"

@Douglas S. Taylor,

Re: "I wonder why Google chose WebKit as the engine?"

That was also my question. A Google search on "compare webkit gecko" yields an ocean of opinions, but here's one that is to the point: weblogs.mozillazine.org/pinkerton/archives/017550.html

"Gecko is as impenetrable and bloated as it is fast and compatible. WebKit, on the other hand, is sleek and svelte. It's approachable. It's really easy to fix bugs. If you ask developers which they'd rather work on, the ones who pick Gecko should get their heads examined."

Re: Opera

Yeah, Opera has lots of fans, too. FF3 is my browser of choice but some of that is due to pure familiarity-based inertia. My son uses the mobile version of Opera on his Blackberry, while I don't yet only because I am afraid it will be so much better than the default Blackberry browser that I will slip deeper into addiction.

Re: "Having said this, I wonder 'when' Google will create their own proprietary version to run all these new nifty things in the future?"

My own personal guess: The day that Google wakes up and realizes that it has been so complacent that it forgot to hire great people, forget to build compelling solutions, and needs to turn to the proprietary lock-in patent-based model to survive. So far, they have their eyes open and don't look to be heading to that day too soon. Which will also be the day that the motto "Do No Evil" turns into "Admit No Evil". ;-)

IMHO, of course.

Thanks for the answer and your thoughts. I know what you mean about the "CrackBerry." I put mine away to go through some withdraws of my own.

About Open Source: As Google will obviously gain a metric ton of development ideas and untilmately solutions to make the evolution of Chrome even more viable without costing them the equal tonage in paying the mega-bucks to hire additional consultants, developers, and the like -- This is a good direction to gain from.

Of course, just a thought, maybe Google will plan on developing just a pure open-source OS based upon Linux. If and when Google does, this may make a huge push for people out here to go to a Google-based Linux system complete with all kinds of features geared for their upcoming products specifically designed to reinforce their abitions, and that might be just enough to get Microsoft worried even more so.

Sure, I'm just personally speculating, and this will take a few years for Google to do, that is, if they do. A serious nemesis for Microsoft, perhaps?

After all, Google has a large fan base, and coming up with a serious attempt to go after the "Corporate" environment, may be a solid plan. There own version of an Open Office that runs specifically for the "Gears" online applications that would, or could be seemless between the PC and their services where a person would have even more functionality, and ultimately, choice.

This is a notice to all commenters:

This afternoon I deleted some comments about VCSY, and I unpublished 22 comments believed to be from the Fake I-Man (based on the IP address). I have not removed comments from portuno as some commenters requested. I did remove links in some portuno comments pointing to blogs he wrote about VCSY.

There is no censorship at Microsoft Watch, but spam is deleted. The posts on VCSY are endless, and they should have stopped when the settlement was reached. Any future VCSY comments will be treated as spam and deleted. If they persist, the poster will be banned.

Douglas Taylor and Tom Berber asked for some respite from portuno. Again, I don't censor comments. If it were my choice--and it's not--there would be no anonymous commenting at Microsoft Watch. Douglas and Tom both identify themselves through links. Portuno does not. The weak often hide and from their secrecy attack those in the open.

Portuno is right when he says that I have his e-mail address. But that doesn't really identify who he is, although the information wasn't that hard for me to get. I strongly suggest that portuno clearly identify himself and his associations if he wants to attack the integrity of others.

As for the others, like Douglas and Tom, don't let portuno's insinuations and accusations bother you. He's looking for reaction, methinks. Why feed his need to bleed you?

I found the VCSY posts to be mildly assuming and somewhat annoying. I watched the banter with other commenters and portuno, who clearly sought reaction. Neither he nor either of the I-Mans is getting a reaction from me. I've stepped in because plenty enough time has passed since the VCSY settlement and enough regular commenters have requested action for me to do something. So I'm taking action and will step in again and again until all this nonsense stops.

I am posting this comment on the 10 most recent Microsoft Watch blog posts.

My thanks to all the regular commenters,

Joe

Thanks Joe!

You're right, of course... portuno's insinuations are exactly that, mindless insinuations not worthy of the agitation.

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html#size=small&page=32

^ Links to a comic that might explain the constant "phone home" calls that Chrome's making.

Either way, I love the browser. =\

Unfortunatly Chrome's Incognito mode isn't really private. It keeps so-called "flash cookies" even after leaving the Incognito mode. So every website can still keep track on you using this technique. And other users of your computer can see which websites you have visited too.

Just followed a link here after reading another privacy "concerning" post here:

http://www.groovypost.com/howto/security/how-to-lose-face-with-google-picasa-literally/

Google = new evil empire?

I ain't gonna risk using Chrome again !. Firefox rules.

You clearly haven't done your homework, Joe.

>> I've just got to excerpt from this document: "When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to Google so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for."

Can you say keylogger? What else could "the letters you type" mean?

It only sends the keys you type into the address bar to the Google servers. This can hardly be called a key logger. Moreover, as it says the are "sent to Google so the Suggest feature can automatically recommend terms or URLs you may be looking for". This means that they may not use this information for anything else than stated here.

>> Now make sure you read this paragraph at least twice:

"Your copy of Google Chrome includes one or more unique application numbers. These numbers and information about your installation of the browser (e.g., version number, language) will be sent to Google when you first install and use it and when Google Chrome automatically checks for updates. If you choose to send usage statistics and crash reports to Google, the browser will send us this information along with a unique application number as well."

WTH? Application numbers? Well, well, browsing is a whole lot less anonymous with Chrome. Why is there no uproar? Microsoft got hammered by the news media in 2001 because Windows XP appeared to send user identifiable activation numbers during setup. Google is identifying your browser with a unique number. What would prevent that number from being associated with a Google ID for Gmail or related service?

Or perhaps, when you have a technical problem (e.g a crash), they want to know if it's always happening to the same browser (e.g computer), or to everyone.

For example, if I made a browser, I'd be a lot more worried if it had an error on everyones computer, instead of just one person constantly having an error.

Now this next part is the part that tells me your no computing genius, Joe:

>> I was going to say that the best way to protect your privacy from Google snooping is to use Chrome in incognito—or safe browsing—mode. But even that feature has privacy limitations:

"If you use Google Chrome in incognito mode, it will not transmit any pre-existing cookies to sites that you visit. Sites may deposit new cookies on your machine while you are in incognito mode, however. These cookies will be temporarily stored and transmitted to sites while you remain in incognito mode. They will be deleted when you close the browser or return to normal browsing mode."
New cookies? What's incognito about that? Session cookies could still track a heck of a lot of behavior across sites. Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2's similar feature is InPrivate Browsing. IE 8 also will drop cookies during the private browsing session, except the user can prevent this behavior. IE 8, like IE 7, lets users set prompts for first-party and third-party cookies. Based on my testing, the feature works just fine in InPrivate Browsing mode.

Im sorry, but do you -know- what a cookie is? For one thing, a session cookie as you call it cannot track you across sites. Why, you ask? Because only cookies that belong to a certain site will be transmitted to that site.

For example:
www.site.com decides to put the cookie "auth=yes" onto your browser. This means that whenever you load anything on that site over the HTTP protocol, your browser will send "auth=yes" as well. However if I go to www.anothersite.com, it doesn't send "auth=yes" to that site. Moreover, even if it did, it is impossible to track cross-site activity because it would require each site you are visiting to send information to whoever is tracking you.

So why should it accept new cookies? Because every site uses cookies. If you log into a web game in incognito mode, it will require you have cookies. Infact it would be stupid -NOT- to have cookies. What matters about incognito mode and cookies is that incognito mode will delete the cookies when you close the incognito window.

Im sorry, I dont usually reply to this type of thing, but the abundance of errors in this article are overwhelming.