It’s not even “Incognito” (what a misnomer too), this is a Gecko-based browser
I feel like for straw poll it’s more valid, they probably do it to try and avoid people voting more than once.
Cookies are not evil per se… but data mining companies made them like that.
I’m administrating an online store and cookies are responsible for the customer’s cart, plus their user session / logged in state.
As an admin I adhere to the “golden rule”, thus there are no creepy trackers on store. I don’t like them and I don’t want customers to face the same thing on websites that I manage.
That said, cookies are needed for user session & fraud protection. Instead of nuking cookies we shall kick the trackers out.
It kind of makes sense for strawpoll, because without some sort of cookies, they wouldn’t know if the same person is voting multiple times. But they should say something like ‘incognito mode makes the votes inaccurate, please visit on normal mode’
“One vote per IP-address” - So they already tackled the problem that people can vote more then once.
Straight-up asshole design.
There’s an extension that allows you to hide incognito mode from websites called Hide Private Mode I’m not sure why browsers don’t do this by default (maybe it’s some funny compliance thing) it would greatly improve privacy.
Sites like this I just close the tab and use uBlacklist to hide them from any search results.
Honestly people should just set there browser to clear cookies on close
It would be nice if you could whitelist sites for cookies. That way you can stay logged into things like email.
You can, on firefox at least. No add ons required it’s a browser feature.
Is that Firefox Focus? Because if yes, them that counts as “incognito mode” too.
It’s IceRaven, but I have it set to permanent private mode. I dont need to deal with cookies of every shitty site.
It just how internet works, dude. Most of the sites can’t work without cookies at all.
We need to be teaching sites that working that way is unacceptable, not accepting it.
This is the way
Let Mozilla know by filing a report on Webcompat.
I’ll look into that. I believe web sites shouldn’t have any way to detect private mode, right?
I wonder if it tries to save a cookie then read it back? I don’t really know how any of this works but that sounds like a way to detect it that’s fairly infallible.
Writing a cookie and reading it back should work just fine even in incognito mode. It just gets deleted once incognito is closed.
I mean, of all sites, polls make the most sense to require cookies to avoid duplicate votes.
Cookies are really inappropriate for this use…
You need to track the user for a poll. Sessions don’t work since private browsing enables duplicate votes. Tracking the IP can block users from the same network/wifi. Cookies get auto-sent and browser storage is only clientside. Really not many more options aside from making an account on a site and logging in. I find it a pretty reasonable solution actually.
Cookies fall short just the same as sessions. you’re asking the user to pinkie promise they won’t clear their cookies / modify them.
An account seems the most logical. You need to avoid duplicates ; it’s not really about privacy here. You’ll only make a tradeoff between accomplishing no duplicates and letting users do what they want.
