I agree that labeling should be simple and easy to understand, but people aren't going to understand "non-caching". They don't know what a cache is, other than that websites keep telling them to clear it. "Local self-clean" tells me absolutely nothing, other than that I can maybe use it to blow dust out of my PC.

Google needed a name that fits on a button, translates easily and is recognisable. That's why we're using "browsers" instead of "HTML5 user agents", why we use "windows" instead of "top level control elements" and "sleep mode" instead of "ACPI power state S3". Using technically correct terms for the general public is exactly why people prefer dumbed down smartphones over complex traditional software.

Since its inception, private mode has shown a screen that describes what it does or doesn't do whenever you open it. Had Google omitted that, and directed private mode directly to the user's home page, then perhaps I'd agree with you. In this case, I believe Google did the best they could to balance a technically correct explanation with something that's understandable by normal people and children.

You can't blame everything on "the user shouldn't have to know better". An automatic gearbox won't put itself into reverse when you want it, but it's still called automatic. A juicer won't turn a spoon into metal juice. A vacuum cleaner won't work in a vacuum. All of this is perfectly logical if you're used to the context things are used in, but that context obviously doesn't need to be part of most products' naming.

Misunderstanding naming and terminology is a sign that things need better explanations, but not the basis for a lawsuit in my opinion.

> Incognito, like it or not, evokes the expectation that the browser is doing something to frustrate monitoring by other parties.

And it does this: cookies are not shared or stored past the session, etc.

The issue is that some tracking can still be accomplished by websites, even while other tracking is stymied.

What do you call this?

I agree. There would be no issue if these were two separate companies - Google Inc (et al) would be doing their best to surveil you, while Chrome Inc would be doing their best to keep you safe from the prevailing conditions. But since it's a single entity offering you privacy and then doing the exact opposite behind the scenes, it's fraudulent. Understanding the technical details for how it works out the way it does just creates a blind spot where you miss the big picture, which is how Google managed to get themselves into this situation.

Non-caching isn't accurate either though, as the story about the man who found portions of an incognito view cached and displayed when he opened a game in front of other family members makes clear.

IIRC, this was not considered a bug.