×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome Private Mode Not Quite Private

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-if-i-wear-a-hat dept.

Privacy 234

wiplash writes "Google Chrome appears to store at least some information related to, and including, the sites that you have visited when browsing in Incognito mode. Lewis Thompson outlines a set of steps you can follow to confirm whether you are affected. He has apparently reported this to Google, but no response has yet been received."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

Cue in fucktard Sopssa troll posts in 3, 2, 1 ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254162)

Fuck sopssa!

Re:Cue in fucktard Sopssa troll posts in 3, 2, 1 . (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32255336)

he does love to rock that ballmer cock

Addicted. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254196)

Google is addicted to your information, and will do whatever they can to get more.

They cannot help themselves.

Resist.

Re:Addicted. (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254296)

Yep, the default stance of Google is they'll snoop on you in some mode because it's what they feed on. Modulate your tinfoil hat accordingly.

Re:Addicted. (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254446)

Yes, it's the basis of their business model. They need all that information to serve their advertisers better. This means they're also constantly looking for new ways to get even more and more information. Even if some of their services currently aren't related to advertising (like their free DNS service), there's no guarantee that they cannot be in the future. They're awfully easy to integrate later when they have grown, and with publicly traded companies you never know what is going to happen in the future. Especially when they're looking for new ways to generate advertising revenue.

Notice that all of their services are related to obtaining information, usage statistics, datamining and serving advertisement. YouTube too is a great resource for advertisers, as soon as online video matures a little bit more (though they're already working on it).

Not that it's a bad business model - but if you value your privacy, you might want to consider forgetting freeloading for a moment and buying software. You know, the business model that is based on customers paying for the software instead of selling their soul for advertisers. Google is the new adware business, they have just hidden it better.

Re:Addicted. (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254662)

How, exactly, is "buying software" supposed to stop "customers selling their souls"?

Re:Addicted. (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254920)

Because you know that the company funds the development by selling the product to their customers, not by selling their customer data to advertisers.

Most of these companies also have very strict privacy policies where they state that they wont sell or give your information to a third party or for advertising purposes.

Re:Addicted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32255250)

Because you know that the company funds the development by selling the product to their customers, not by selling their customer data to advertisers.

That doesn't answer the question. That just says "these companies are likely to take your money AND your soul".

Most of these companies also have very strict privacy policies where they state that they wont sell or give your information to a third party or for advertising purposes.

"Very strict privacy policies" only last until they're proven wrong. Again. And again. And again. And again. And...

Re:Addicted. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255352)

And how exactly do you know this for sure?

Have you ever heard a company say "We're earning enough money, we don't want any more"?

Re:Addicted. (3, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254866)

I'm not too worried about my privacy when it comes to corporations. Partly, it's because they already have a lot of data on me. Partly, it's because if they abuse it, I have at least a possible method of recourse.

What I am worried about is the government getting their hands on such data. Now that's a danger that far exceeds what a corporation can do. And, you have no method of recourse against the government.

Look at it this way: The worst a corporation could do is deny me a loan, because I buy a lot of junk online, and that means (by whatever twisted logic corporations employ) I'd be more likely to default on it.

The worst a government can do is pull me over for a traffic violation, and throw me into prison without a trial because the routine check brought up the fact that I frequent sites that advocate extreme or even locally unpopular views.

Which all leads to why I try to keep as anonymous as practically possible. Corporations don't have adequate data retention (or deletion) policy for my needs. And they cave easily to the government. Google is only slightly better in that they explicitly state how long they'll keep the data. But until every corporation adopts far more restrictive data retention policies whether by government regulation or by public outcry, I'm going to keep data on me from leaking out as much as possible.

And before anybody points out the obvious contradiction above, I'm just going to say that entities can work for you sometimes, and against you sometimes, neither of which precludes them from doing the complete opposite at the same time.

Re:Addicted. (5, Interesting)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255106)

I was going to reply with comments related to the Constitution(specifically the Bill of Rights), how the court system works, the various court cases the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding protests and freedom of speech, and other facets of how the law protects you from government abuse related to freedom of speech and protest/demonstrations, but then I remembered that this is Slashdot, and the government is always bad, and corporations are always better than the government.

I sometimes forget that I am in the minority around here when it comes to trust of the government vs. trust of corporations(I trust the government more than I trust corporations, though I have a healthy wish for privacy). I am one of those that thinks Orwell is overrated(I like the stories, but I don't see them happening), with Huxley's Brave New World being my dystopian present/future to be feared.

Re:Addicted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254312)

Resistance is futile

Re:Addicted. (1, Troll)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254388)

Is there any way to stop Chrome sending the info of the URLs you type into the address bar back to google, yet?

Re:Addicted. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254488)

Do you believe every piece of FUD that comes out of sopssa's mouth? By default yes, everything typed into the address bar is sent to google which is how their autocomplete for searches works. If you just don't want it sent to google, change your default search provider. if you don't want it sent anywhere simply uncheck 'use a suggestion service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar' in the Under the Hood tab of Options.

Re:Addicted. (2, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255314)

What I noticed recently was when I clicked on the final "clear browser data" button, Google Chrome would make a http request or two back to Google. Not sure why this happen. I don't have "send usage statistics and crash reports" enabled, but I do have show suggestions, use suggestion service dns prefetching, phishing protection enabled.

Anyone else managed to reproduce this on their Google Chrome browser?

Re:Addicted. (3, Interesting)

Snarf You (1285360) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254944)

Is there any way to stop Chrome sending the info of the URLs you type into the address bar back to google, yet?

Yes - use SRWare Iron [srware.net]. It's a fork of Chrome, without all the phone-home stuff.

Re:Addicted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254394)

Whoever moderated this "insightful" may want to read the article first. Do you really think that it's Google's nefarious plan to record the magnification settings of the web pages that you visit?

Re:Addicted. (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254498)

Whoever moderated this "insightful" may want to read the article first. Do you really think that it's Google's nefarious plan to record the magnification settings of the web pages that you visit?

It's Google's plan to record anything and everything about you that it can, which makes the difference between Google and Facebook simply a matter of spelling.

Re:Addicted. (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254898)

And they do this by storing some information on *my* PC where they cannot reach it? What's the point exactly? The freakin info is stored in the local preferences. Yes, it's a - relatively harmless - side channel and no this is not Google being evil.

Re:Addicted. (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254872)

Google is addicted to your information, and will do whatever they can to get more.

They cannot help themselves.

No way, man, they can quit any time they want to - they've done it a hundred times!

WHAT (1)

Some.Net(Guy) (1733146) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254222)

You mean someone knows when I put my browser in Porn Mode?

Re:WHAT (3, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254260)

How else do you think Chrome gets to be so fast? The Chocolate Factory knows your entire browsing history so it just pre-loads your favourite pages before you even realize that you want them. Why shouldn't it keep track of your favourite kinds of porn, offshore gambling web sites, and that hotmail.com email address that you thought you were keeping to yourself?

Good thing my wife doesn't read Slashdot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254288)

Right, honey?

Re:Good thing my wife doesn't read Slashdot. (1, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254338)

One assumes that Mrs. Coward has seen enough of your posts over the years. I'd be surprised if she
even uses the internet anymore.

Re:Good thing my wife doesn't read Slashdot. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254678)

Hi, Mrs. Coward here. You assume too much ;)

Re:Good thing my wife doesn't read Slashdot. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254720)

That's right honey, I never read Slashdot... Oh wait... Damn it, you got me!

Didn't work for me (4, Informative)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254324)

using 4.1.249.1064 on Win7.

Re:Didn't work for me (2, Interesting)

k_187 (61692) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254582)

Yeah, seems this only affects the beta versions from their Dev channel.

Re:Didn't work for me (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254864)

Yeah, seems this only affects the beta versions from their Dev channel.

Man that's evil! Putting bugs in their betas so they can spy on us...

Re:Didn't work for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32255394)

Chrome didn't start remembering zoom levels on a per-domain basis until (I believe) the 5.x series. So no, you wouldn't notice this bug in a 4.x release.

Look at Firefox as well (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254334)

Try running a strings against places.sqlite in Firefox as well after all the personal history has been cleared - I sometimes see URLs left in there.

Re:Look at Firefox as well (1)

Looce (1062620) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255022)

I think that the clearing of private data in Firefox is a bit counter-productive, because deleting from SQLite databases merely marks the rows' storage space as being reclaimable within the file.

I once cleared private data for a day when my places.sqlite was around 70 MiB, then checked the file size and saw that it hadn't even changed by one byte. It wouldn't surprise me if the URLs were still in there -- all of them, intact, until you visit other pages to make Firefox overwrite the reclaimable pages in places.sqlite.

Even if Firefox truncated places.sqlite when the user clicked "delete everything", the URLs would still be readable on the underlying storage device. Firefox would have to shred(1) or zero out the file. I doubt that's going to happen.

this doesn't happen to me (4, Interesting)

yincrash (854885) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254342)

tried it in 5.0.375.38 beta. my hypothesis is that he had other incognito windows open as well (probably with porn in them) that kept the incognito session going while he was open and closing the elephants.com window.

all incognito windows share the same session

Re:this doesn't happen to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254502)

I just reproduced it on "6.0.407.0 (47392) Ubuntu". That's new as of this morning from the "PPA for Ubuntu Chromium - Daily Builds".

Re:this doesn't happen to me (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254608)

I just did it with 5.0.375.38 beta on Ubuntu and it worked, even after closing all chrome instances, restarting Chrome and starting a new incognito window.

Persists across restarts, too (4, Informative)

emag (4640) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254344)

So, since the example in TFA didn't restart Chrome between incognito windows, I decided to see what happened when I followed the steps with "4.5 Exit chrome completely, then restart", and can confirm that even when Chrome fully exits and is restarted, it remembers the zoom level used in a URL only ever visited in an incognito window.

Re:Persists across restarts, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254430)

It's not working on my side... If I close every instance of Chrome (not just the incognito mode, but anything called chrome.exe) it won't remember the zoom after that.

Re:Persists across restarts, too (1)

emag (4640) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254490)

I should mention this is with google-chrome-unstable 6.0.401.1-r47050 on Linux. YMMV.

Not surprised. (0, Troll)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254346)

Just the other day I was ridiculed here by a few for suggesting that I don't trust Google Chrome with my privacy.

I'll stick with Firefox.

Re:Not surprised. (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254402)

Maybe it's an honest mistake. Maybe. We'll find out with how Google reacts to this discovery.

Re:Not surprised. (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254542)

Honest mistake just like the WIFI data collection ordeal? yeah sure ...
There's no mistakes like that happening with Google, only closing data collection after public outrage and blaming it as a mistake

Re:Not surprised. (1)

severoon (536737) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254848)

I don't get the flap over the wifi collection thing. It was publicly open wifi stuff they were collecting. If I stick a bullhorn out my window and I yell, I'm eating breakfast now, I'm showering now, I'm going to work, is it reasonable to reserve the right to be offended when people know about the particulars of my day?

Re:Not surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32255064)

Except that's not the same thing. Just because I leave my door unlocked does not give you the right to come in to my house and eat my food and wear my clothes. By that same token, just because I left my wifi unsecured does not automatically give you the right to connect to my network. But this was beyond that. There was literally no. legitimate. reason. for google to want that information. It wasn't useful to the project, it was purely to expand their pool of aggregated information. rather than the bullhorn, it's someone under your open window taking notes.

Re:Not surprised. (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255388)

Terrible example. Collecting wifi ssids doesn't require connecting to the wifi point at all.

It's like recording people's door numbers from a distant except you only know that number is around that area.

Also it IS useful as it allows you to do geolocation in areas where you can't get gps or you want a more accurate gps coord.

Re:Not surprised. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254622)

This and many other things about privacy concern me. I work at MIT and google and other big companies hang around, and both within academia and industry there are not enough people advocating privacy and information ownership. Trust me, or not, but Big companies lust over personal information.

Re:Not surprised. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254746)

If someone's dick ends up in your ass, would consider the possibility that it was an honest mistake?

Not an issue of trust (2, Insightful)

Saishuuheiki (1657565) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254534)

This isn't even an issue of trust. It's not a question of whether Google is stealing information about you, or even privacy. It's an error or a possible bug wherein the mode where the browser is in essentially *no history* mode isn't working 100% w/o history.

If this is true, then it raises issues of quality control, not trust

Re:Not an issue of trust (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254568)

If this is true, then it raises issues of quality control, not trust

You trust companies with shitty quality control.... when they make quality claims?

Re:Not surprised. (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254592)

There's always Chromium; I run it on Ubuntu [hyperlogos.org]. For Windows there's SRWare Iron [srware.net]. I'm not sure which is the preferred build for OSX; perhaps Crossover Chromium [codeweavers.com]. TFA doesn't say whether Chromium is affected. Some comments under TFA state that the effect lasts only until Chrome is restarted, suggesting that the information is stored only in the memory cache.

*Sigh* not true. (0, Flamebait)

sobachatina (635055) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254412)

This is some guys blog and even the comments point out that he is wrong and it isn't reproducible.

But- I suppose nonsense posts still get the Google haters and Google apologists such as myself to view the ads.
Well done Slashdot!

Re:*Sigh* not true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254530)

*Sigh* the article summary made it clear that not every Chrome browser is affected. I generally am inclined to the apologist side, but I do see this problem with my 5.0.375.38 beta version running on Linux. Now I'm curious to learn about how Chrome stores its data to see if I can figure out where this zoom level is.

Re:*Sigh* not true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254740)

Reproduces just fine for me.

Complete shutdown of Chrome doesn't clear it.

Options->Clear Browsing Data->Everything doesn't clear it.

Incognito isn't incognito. This, along with the piss-poor NoScript-like functionality in Chrome make it my Linux equivalent of IE (the browser I use when I want to let it all hang out)

Firefox + NoScript + BetterPrivacy + CookieSafe for real browsing.

Re:*Sigh* not true. (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254812)

There are also posts that it *does* work on later versions.

Hopefully you will now get modded into oblivion showing that the modding system actually works, so I can truly say:

Well done Slashdot!

Tried it... (1)

dcmoebius (1527443) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254496)

And like many of the comments in TFA, it didn't work for me (using 4.1.249.1064) once I completely closed out chrome.

It seems that the issue only affects certain versions of Chrome... I'm guessing this is an honest bug, but since it's google, everyone freaks the hell out.

Reproduced it here just fine (5, Informative)

droopus (33472) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254528)

Exactly as reported.

I'm using 5.0.375.29 beta on an Air running 10.6.3 over wifi.

Went to cheese.com [cheese.com] (the #1 resource for cheese!) and the zoom held.

Additionally, when I opened a new tab in non-incognito mode, the zoom STILL held, so there is definitely some communication between regular and incognito windows.

I'm devastated that my secret cheese browsing is now public.

Re:Reproduced it here just fine (1, Funny)

theVP (835556) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254798)

Great, you now took down the #1 resource for cheese with the Slashdot effect. Good going.

Re:Reproduced it here just fine (1)

droopus (33472) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255254)

Bwah, so we eat Cracker Barrel for a week. This is about our pr0n privacy!

Excellent comeback, my compliments.

Then again, Chrome never was private... (1)

carlhaagen (1021273) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254540)

...I'm sure enough people already know exactly what information of your doings the browser sends back to Google.

Notifying Google is like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254618)

Talking to a pet rock. Neither one can hear you.

Known "feature" from Chrome 5 Beta (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254652)

The remember zoom was added to the 5.x Beta / Dev channels some time ago, and isn't a part of the current Chrome stable build. [ Google Blog Link : http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/05/10-things-to-try-in-google-chrome-5.html ] Nevertheless, I doubt this is sending any information to Google. You forget Chromium is open source.

Um no (3, Insightful)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254698)

There are many ways to finger print something that are not reversible. For instance, this is just page viewing preference data about a site you visited. What if it takes a hash of the url and uses that to store settings like current zoom and scroll location. There is almost no way this violates the idea of 'incognito' mode.

Re:Um no (4, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254800)

You are kidding, right?

So I jump on your computer and browse to red-hot-midget-porn.net and find that the zoom level isnt the default value...

Do I conclude that (A) you don't like red-hot-midget-porn?, or (B) you do like red-hot-midget-porn?

Well in any case, I'm pretty sure that everyone likes red-hot-midget-porn, so maybe this is a bad example.

Re:Um no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254838)

I know I'm posting as a coward, but as someone actually working at Google, I haven't looked but can almost guarantee this is how it is done. In fact, I think FireFox takes the same approach, even without an incognito mode. A irreversible hash table isn't too terribly scary. However, there could still be a concern that these could be hacked into and compared to hashes of all sites. Oh wait--we always use salt at google, so panties out of a bunch please.

Bullshit Mr. Coward. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32255372)

$ rm -rf ~/.config/google-chrome
$ /opt/google/chrome/google-chrome --incognito

(output from chrome while I visit www.elephants.com, change the zoom level and exit chrome deleted)

$ find ~/.config/google-chrome -type f -exec grep -i elephants '{}' \;
                  "www.elephants.com": 2

Pitchforks down, please, no story here (3, Informative)

TerrenceCoggins (1601371) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254766)

TFA only mentions zoom levels as being stored -- not any other info from users' porn-mode browsing session, just zoom levels. Chrome recently began saving users' zoom levels (if I'm not mistaken) so that pretty much explains that (while conveniently also accounting for why users of earlier versions may not experiencing this phenomenon as well.) We're all waiting for google to slip up monumentally (or "pull a facebook," if you will,) but unfortunately we'll have to wait another day.

I've said it before, I'll say it again (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#32254772)

Google is a marketing/sales/advertising company. They can only be trusted to a certain point. Their motives are not those of a generous and altruistic organization. Their motives are consistent with those of the type of business they are. It is as simple as that.

the zoom level gets stored in the preferences file (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254902)

i am using chromium 5.0.342.9 (43360) Ubuntu

when i try this a setting gets stored in ~/.config/chromium/Default/Preferences

  "profile": {
            "exited_cleanly": true,
            "per_host_zoom_levels": {
                  "www.privatewebsite.com": -4
            }

i have a feeling this is just a bug and not some google trying to steal our data.

browser bar privacy issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32254912)

There are a couple of sites I only visit in Chrome's private mode.

They do not appear on my history but they do auto-complete on the browser bar (I press 'x' and it automatically types 'xxxnnn.com'). At first I thought I had made a mistake at some point and used the regular browser, but there were no occurrences of theese websites in my history and I'm sure I was careful enough.

Anyone else having the same problem? I also don't know how to fix it, it keeps popping in the browser bar. I'm on debian btw

for those that cannot reproduce this... (2, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255018)

Be aware of the version you're using. Chrome v4 *may* not save the zoom level, so it wouldn't show it anyway. I'm on the dev channel, and thus am using the newly-released v6, and it's definitely reproducible.

I submitted this a while ago (3, Interesting)

rcamans (252182) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255154)

Submitted by rcamans on Friday October 23 2009, @01:21PM
rcamans writes "Visit a bunch of sites in Chrome incognito, and then look at your history in IE 7. Oh My God! A few of the sites you did not want in history are in IE history? How did they get there? A nasty in Windows XP OS. Oh, man...
These sites do not show in Opera history, Safari history, Chrome history, or FIrefox history. So maybe it has to do with IE integration into the Windows OS. Do not trust Chrome incognito until this bug is fixed. If it can be fixed.

Also, IE7 search history shows Chrome incognito search items. Oops

Easy to demonstrate that incognito doesn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32255196)

$ rm -rf ~/.config/google-chrome
$ /opt/google/chrome/google-chrome --incognito

$ find ~/.config/google-chrome -type f -exec grep -i elephants '{}' \;
                  "www.elephants.com": 2

Storage location (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255198)

I have the Chrome 5.0.375.38 beta from Ubuntu 10.04. Browsing Incognito appears to still change a number of files on disk, though I haven't investigated what is changed or stored. Finding the zoom problem is straightforward, though:

Per-site zoom levels are stored in a Preferences file (.config/google-chrome/Default/Preferences for me) in a "per_host_zoom_levels" section. It appears that the key is the domain name and the value is the zoom level. These seem to be saved when Chrome exits and, at least in my version, are set and accessed from both regular and Incognito mode.

So, anyone who can read this file knows on what domains you have set non-default zoom levels, regardless of whether you accessed the site in Incognito mode.

linux config file (1)

Rubedo (868298) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255204)

In linux, the zoom preferences are stored in the file ~/.config/chromium/Default/Preferences . Making the default directory non-writable by the user will prevent the zoom level (and whatever else) from being stored.

Simple explanation (3, Interesting)

jeti (105266) | more than 2 years ago | (#32255228)

Chrome is very likely to hold the DOM of visited pages in the cache so that f.e. hitting the back button will quickly render the previous page. That does not necessarily mean that the information gets persisted on the hard drive or is available to other pages. On the other hand it's not unlikely that the information sometimes gets paged out to the hard drive and persists until it gets overwritten.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...