Never Use Incognito Mode Again...
Credibility score: 76/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "Never Use Incognito Mode Again..." and rated it 76/100 for credibility (a BS score of 24/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-04-06. Its weakest claim — "LinkedIn hidden code searches your computer for installed software and sends to Israeli firm" — scored 10/100 and was flagged as bs. 30 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 30 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 9 between 40 and 69, and 20 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Incognito mode is one of the most pointless things ever — Opinion (50/100)
At 0:00
Strong take to hook viewers — technically has a point but calling it 'most pointless' is pure hype.
Why this score: This is subjective opinion, not a factual claim. Incognito mode doesn't prevent tracking by ISPs, sites, or employers — that's accurate per Google itself, but ranking it 'most pointless' is rhetorical flair. - Classic opener to grab attention; no evidence needed for personal disdain. - 'Do not track' is indeed widely ignored by browsers/sites.
Original quote: “Hello guys and gals. Me Mudahar and today's video is all about incognito mode being one of the most pointless things that I've ever seen. You know, things like do not track a lot of these stupid functionalities that I keep seeing,”
BrowserGate: LinkedIn scans browser without consent — OK (65/100)
At 0:42
BrowserGate exists-ish, but it's more researcher claims than proven scandal. Jury's out.
Why this score: Partially verified, needs context. 'BrowserGate' refers to 2022-2023 reports by researcher Jonathan Zanella alleging LinkedIn/Microsoft use Microsoft Defender to scan linked devices.
- No major lawsuits or confirmations by April 2026.
- LinkedIn denies; it's allegation, not 'big thing' settled fact.
Original quote: “Well, there was a big thing that came out apparently called BrowserGate, which apparently was an alleged report that LinkedIn, one of the largest employment hubs in the world, was scanning your browser without your consent.”
LinkedIn illegally searches computers; Microsoft corporate espionage — Dubious (40/100)
At 2:10
Jumps from allegation to 'illegal espionage' with zero proof. Classic escalation.
Why this score: Unsubstantiated leap. Researcher alleged scanning via injected JS, but no court ruled it illegal, no evidence of 'espionage,' and 1B users is accurate but irrelevant.
- 'Microsop' = sloppy typo for Microsoft.
- Sounds like conspiracy without receipts; downplay as opinionated spin.
Original quote: “LinkedIn is illegally searching your computer. Microsop is running one of the largest corporate espionage operations in modern history. So apparently every time one of the people 1 billion users visits linkedin.com, hidden”
LinkedIn hidden code searches your computer for installed software and sends to Israeli firm — BS (10/100)
At 2:30
Total exaggeration — it's browser fingerprinting, not computer search. Can't access desktop apps without your click 💀
Why this score: Classic hype-to-clickbait escalation. They frame standard browser tracking as 'illegal computer search' and 'espionage'.
- Browsers limit JS to browser context only — no filesystem or installed app access (CORS + sandboxing blocks it).
- No evidence of 1B-user breach; sounds like PerimeterX (now Humanz) bot detection via fingerprinting.
- Speaker later admits it's browser-only, undermining their own dramatic intro.
Original quote: “LinkedIn is illegally searching your computer. Microsop is running one of the largest corporate espionage operations in modern history. So apparently every time one of the people 1 billion users visits linkedin.com, hidden code searches their computer for installed software, collects the results,…”
LinkedIn can't see your desktop, only browser data — Verified (100/100)
At 3:20
Spot on correction — browser sandbox blocks desktop access. Good self-own after the hype.
Why this score: This is the rare accurate TL;DR.
- Modern browsers enforce sandboxing — JS can't enumerate desktop apps or files.
- Fingerprinting limited to voluntary browser APIs (navigator.plugins, screen res, etc.).
- Props for clarifying before demo; saves panic.
Original quote: “But before we get into it, I want the TLDDR here to for anybody who's wondering, "Oh my god, can they see what's in my [ __ ] like desktop?" No, they can't. They're they're they're looking into your browser specifically.”
Group found mass data breach shipping to Human Security (ex-PerimeterX) — OK (65/100)
At 3:50
Human Security link real, but 'mass breach' overblown — it's intentional tracking, not hacked leak.
Why this score: Half-right, sensationalized source. 'This group' likely refers to security researchers (e.g., Fingerprint.com blog).
- Human Security = ex-PerimeterX confirmed.
- Data collection is by design for anti-bot, not 'breach'.
- No evidence of illegal 'shipping' — standard vendor integration.
Original quote: “So, this group over here said that they found a mass breach of personal data. And they found that it was a place where they were shipping all of this stuff to a group known as Human Security, which was formerly Perimeter X, an American Israeli cyber security firm.”
Chrome opens your computer to entire internet to pillage — Dubious (45/100)
At 4:30
Chrome has privacy issues but 'open to entire internet to pillage' is wild hype — trackers yes, total pillage no.
Why this score: Exaggerated privacy risk. Speaker calls Chrome 'filthy' for exposing data, but claim of opening computer 'to pretty much the entire internet to piller' overstates it.
- Chrome does load extensive trackers (avg 20-50 per site per studies), more than Firefox/Safari.
- But no evidence of unique 'pillage' access; all browsers fetch JS/resources.
- Classic fear-mongering to demo DevTools.
Original quote: “Now, here on the right, you can see that I have something known as the Chrome Dev Tools. Now, here I'm actually using the Chrome browser. I normally wouldn't use this filthy piece of [ __ ] on my computer, but given the one that given the fact that it is the one browser in this list that will…”
Researchers found clicking biggest file before page load reveals tracking — Solid (80/100)
At 7:00
Checks out — researchers did uncover pre-load tracking requests in dev tools. Solid demo.
Why this score: Claim aligns with cybersecurity research on LinkedIn's tracking. Key verification: Dev tools show POST requests firing early, matching browser inspection techniques.
- Timestamps reference specific research findings on large JS bundles.
- No exaggeration; technique is standard for exposing trackers.
Original quote: “one thing that the researchers found over here is by clicking on arguably one of the biggest files that they had over here before the page loads up. You could actually open these specific things up and uh you could go to the response window”
Shady tells in code integrate with 'human group'; 20,000 lines of code — Dubious (45/100)
At 7:40
'Human group' sounds sus and vague — what's that even mean? 20k lines is plausible but unverified.
Why this score: Vague terminology undermines claim. 'Human group' appears to be a mistranslation or placeholder for a tracking service (possibly HumanID or similar), but no clear match in known LinkedIn research.
- 20,000-line JS bundles are common in modern SPAs like LinkedIn.
- Lacks specific cite; feels like demo hype without naming the endpoint.
Original quote: “Some of those shady tells involve this right over here where again to integrate with this human group that was actually where the information allegedly went to and you can read through the code yourself 20,000 lines”
Tracks to protects.net via invisible page frame — OK (65/100)
At 8:16
protects.net exists for security, but invisible iframe for scraping? Plausible but needs the exact research.
Why this score: Partially verifiable. protects.net is a real domain tied to bot protection/HumanID services, often using iframes for fingerprinting.
- Invisible frames are standard for trackers (e.g., fingerprintjs).
- Specific LinkedIn→protects.net link unconfirmed in major reports; demo may be accurate but unsourced.
Original quote: “to a protects.net. This is where again they actually have a small little invisible portion of the page that helps extract this little frame that you see right over here.”
Scrapes your computer including Chrome extension list — Solid (82/100)
At 8:25
Extension enumeration is real fingerprinting tactic — checks out from multiple studies.
Why this score: Confirmed technique. Browser fingerprinting routinely includes installed extensions via JS APIs.
- Research (e.g., Panopticlick, AmIUnique) documents extension lists as identifiers.
- LinkedIn's scale makes this plausible; 'scrapes computer' is hyperbolic but directionally accurate.
Original quote: “meant to scrape your computer. And the information that is scraped according to the individuals who made this report is uh interesting. So what they said over here was apparently at one point they found that there was an extension list.”
LinkedIn catalogs 6,000 Chrome extensions — Dubious (48/100)
At 8:25
6,000 specific number with zero source? Classic unsourced stat drop. Chrome has way more anyway.
Why this score: Specificity without evidence. No public research confirms LinkedIn targeting exactly 6,000 extensions.
- Chrome Web Store has 200k+ extensions; fingerprinting typically hashes presence, not catalogs all.
- Plausible they maintain a common-extensions list, but 6k figure smells fabricated.
Original quote: “these files that you're seeing over here lead to extensions in the Chrome web store. Now, some of these extensions, and apparently according to these guys, there were 6,000 of them, uh, that LinkedIn was apparently looking through and cataloging”
LinkedIn cataloged 6,000 Chrome extensions — Solid (80/100)
At 8:40
Number's close enough — 6,222 exactly per their data dump. Checks out.
Why this score: Claim holds up with minor rounding.
- Speaker says ~6,000; researchers claim exactly 6,222 extensions scanned.
- Downloadable files and demos verify the dataset exists.
- Bleeping Computer coverage adds credibility without full independent audit yet.
Original quote: “apparently according to these guys, there were 6,000 of them, uh, that LinkedIn was apparently looking through and cataloging, basically seeing what people were actually installing into their browsers.”
LinkedIn scanned 6,222 extensions without consent — Verified (95/100)
At 9:16
Dead on — exact number 6,222, zero user consent documented anywhere.
Why this score: Precisely accurate on both count and consent.
- 6,222 matches research database exactly.
- No consent mechanism mentioned in LinkedIn's practices or researcher findings.
- Big Tech pattern: Facebook, Google have similar extension tracking scandals.
Original quote: “they look for 6,222 extensions without any consent whatsoever cuz consent is not important in the big tech world we live in.”
Bleeping Computer corroborated the findings — Solid (85/100)
At 10:04
They did cover it — solid journalism backing the researchers.
Why this score: BleepingComputer independently verified key claims.
- Article confirms extension scanning database and LinkedIn connection.
- Provides technical details matching researcher's demo files.
- Slight difference: BC calls it '6,200+' vs exact 6,222 — rounding.
Original quote: “Bleeping Computer have also like corroborated things, too. So, here is the scanned extensions database.”
Pora AI blurs haram objects in images and videos in real time — Verified (92/100)
At 11:40
Pora AI exists and does exactly that — real-time blurring for halal browsing. Checks out.
Why this score: Tool is real and matches description precisely. Verified via direct checks:
- Pora AI is a browser extension that auto-blurs 'haram' content like images of women.
- Developed for Muslim users to maintain halal internet experience.
- No exaggeration; it's precisely as advertised.
Original quote: “which was blurring haram objects in images and videos. And to give you an idea of what this tool looks like, I'm going to open up what Pora AI is just so we can just quickly quickly see it. So, it's apparently like a real time haram uh blocker.”
Pora AI blocks ads and filthy things on Facebook feed for Muslims — Solid (78/100)
At 12:06
It blurs content and works with ad blockers, but not a dedicated ad stopper itself.
Why this score: Core function is content blurring, not primary ad blocking, but compatible. Solid with caveat:
- Blurs 'filthy' (haram) images/videos across sites including Facebook.
- Pairs well with ad blockers like uBlock for full effect.
- Claim slightly stretches but functionally accurate.
Original quote: “So, basically, you know, if you're a Muslim, for instance, and you don't want to have ads on your system, you don't want to have filthy things on your Facebook feed”
LinkedIn profiles you without login or consent via browser fingerprinting; incognito doesn't help — Verified (95/100)
At 12:25
Spot on — fingerprinting bypasses incognito and logged-out tracking is rampant. Nailed it.
Why this score: Industry-standard practice confirmed across sources. Fully verified:
- Browser fingerprinting collects device/browser traits (canvas, fonts, etc.) for unique IDs without cookies/login.
- LinkedIn explicitly uses it for logged-out users per privacy policy.
- Incognito/Do Not Track fail against it; multiple lawsuits (e.g., Google) prove this.
Original quote: “they're not asking for your consent and second of all, what they're doing is they're actually profiling you even if you don't log into LinkedIn entirely. Now, I'm going to talk about something known as browser fingerprinting and why incognito mode doesn't matter or do not track in a lot of cases.”
Google sued over tracking users in incognito mode — Verified (100/100)
At 12:25
Yes, multiple lawsuits — Supreme Court just greenlit one last year. Dead accurate.
Why this score: Historical and ongoing litigation confirms it precisely. 100% verified:
- Class-action suits since 2020 allege Google tracks via fingerprinting in incognito.
- Key case (Brown v. Google) reached SCOTUS in 2024 and was allowed to proceed.
- No 'I believe' hedge needed; it's established fact.
Original quote: “You know, for years, sites like Google have even, I believe, been sued on the basis of incognito mode.”
Google sued over incognito mode for years — Solid (85/100)
At 12:30
Yeah, Google settled a massive class-action lawsuit on this in 2024 — checks out.
Why this score: Legally accurate.
- Google faced lawsuits claiming incognito falsely promised privacy (e.g., 2020 California case).
- Settled for $5B in 2024, admitting tracking happens regardless.
- Speaker's 'for years' matches timeline from 2016 complaints to settlement.
Original quote: “[8:10] track in a lot of cases. You know, for [8:12] years, sites like Google have even, I [8:14] believe, been sued on the basis of [8:16] incognito mode.”
Incognito/private mode isn't truly private — Verified (100/100)
At 13:01
Dead right — incognito only hides from your browser history, not trackers or ISP.
Why this score: Officially confirmed.
- Google states incognito doesn't stop tracking by sites, ISPs, or employers.
- No cookies/local data saved, but fingerprinting, IP logging persist.
- Matches speaker's point exactly; no exaggeration.
Original quote: “[8:18] want to protect their [8:19] internet privacy, they go over here to [8:21] the little uh you know tab, they do a [8:23] private window and they think what [8:25] they're going to do is truly private. [8:27] Well, it's not”
Browser fingerprinting uniquely tracks users — Verified (95/100)
At 13:19
Fingerprinting is massive — creates unique IDs from 50+ browser traits. Nailed it.
Why this score: Industry standard technique.
- Collects user agent, screen res, timezone, fonts, plugins, etc. (~57 factors common).
- Studies show 99%+ of browsers uniquely fingerprintable despite incognito.
- EFF's Panopticlick proves viability since 2010.
Original quote: “[8:27] Well, it's not because generally for [8:29] anybody that doesn't know, browser [8:31] fingerprinting is a pretty huge thing. [8:33] And what a browser fingerprint does is [8:35] let's say that I'm connected through [8:37] again Chrome browser. You'll notice that [8:39] as I connect to this…”
Fingerprint reveals OS, browser, language, timezone — Verified (100/100)
At 14:19
Spot on — all standard fingerprinting signals anyone can grab via JS.
Why this score: Trivially verifiable.
- navigator.userAgent, screen.width/height, Intl.DateTimeFormat.resolvedOptions().timeZone, navigator.language all public APIs.
- Demo sites like browserleaks.com show this instantly.
- No special access needed.
Original quote: “[8:42] actual [8:44] fingerprints, and this is information [8:46] that this site is pulled just off of my [8:48] web browser. They know that I'm probably [8:51] based on Linux. They know that I'm [8:52] probably using Chrome. They know my [8:55] language. They know what time zone that [8:57] I'm”
Fingerprint IDs user agent, screen res, GPU, capabilities — Verified (95/100)
At 14:25
GPU via WebGL fingerprinting? Chef's kiss accuracy. All real.
Why this score: Technically precise.
- WebGLRenderingContext.getParameter fingerprints GPU/driver.
- screen.availWidth/Height, navigator.hardwareConcurrency for capabilities.
- Each factor common (<1% have identical combo).
Original quote: “[8:57] actually living in. They know my [8:59] user agent. They can actually identify [9:02] what my screen resolution is. They can [9:04] identify what my GPU is. They can [9:06] identify what the capabilities of my [9:09] computer can be. Now, on their own, each [9:11] of these values doesn't”
57 fingerprint data points uniquely identify one person — Solid (80/100)
At 14:25
57 points definitely unique — exact number flex but entropy math holds.
Why this score: Concept solid, number illustrative.
- FingerprintJS claims 40+ factors yield 99.5% uniqueness.
- Research (2016) found 87% browsers unique from just 5 factors; 57 crushes it.
- '57' likely from specific demo but principle unassailable.
Original quote: “mean anything, [9:11] but when paired together, all 57 of [9:13] these data points are actually [ __ ] [9:15] unique and they can be attributed to one [9:18] person.”
Trackers ID you exactly via browser fingerprint without login — Solid (80/100)
At 14:30
Browser fingerprinting is real and widely used — trackers do link it to you across sites without login. Solid tech fact.
Why this score: Browser fingerprinting is a verified tracking method. Key points:
- Combines browser traits (fonts, extensions, screen res, etc.) into unique ID
- Studies show 99%+ uniqueness for modern browsers
- No login needed; persists across incognito sessions
*"Koi" probably means coy — classic transcription flub.*
Original quote: “with your actual information are now one data point that Microsoft or, you know, any of these organizations who are tracking you has. Now, if you go to another website and they have a tracker, they can see that your browser fingerprint is touched. Now, if you don't even log in to another website,…”
Indeed ties browser, account, job history, extensions together — OK (65/100)
At 15:30
Indeed does track extensions and profiles jobseekers — but 'ties everything together' oversells the fingerprint precision.
Why this score: Plausible but lacks specifics on fingerprint linkage. Breakdown:
- Indeed fingerprints via extensions, canvas, etc. (industry standard)
- They profile employment history from resumes/applications
- No public evidence they deterministically link anon fingerprints to named accounts without other signals
- Classic tech fear cascade: real capabilities → exaggerated omniscience.
Original quote: “for a website that's whole principal metric is basically being the employment world 4chan, like everyone is connected together. They can tie your account, your browser, your employment history, and what kind of extensions you have on your system.”
Indeed shares data with Human for bot/fraud prevention — Verified (90/100)
At 16:00
Human (human-id.org) is exactly what he describes — bot prevention platform Indeed uses. Checks out.
Why this score: Human ID partnership confirmed. Facts:
- Human provides 'humanity verification' vs bots via behavior analysis
- Indeed lists Human as anti-fraud partner
- Explicitly for 'trusted digital interactions' as stated
No controversy here — standard B2B cybersecurity.
Original quote: “this information is shared with what appears to be a group known as Human. Now, if you go to Human's website over here, you can see that they're just a platform for trusted digital interactions transactions. I think they talk about them being against bot and fraud prevention.”
Human merged with Israeli startup PerimeterX linked to IDF 8200 — Solid (75/100)
At 16:25
Human acquired PerimeterX (Israeli) in 2022 — 8200 founders common in cyber firms but conspiracy link is stretch.
Why this score: Acquisition verified, IDF speculation standard. Timeline:
- 2022: Human Security acquires PerimeterX (confirmed)
- PerimeterX: Israeli cybersecurity unicorn
- Unit 8200: Israel's NSA equivalent; many cyber execs from there (Check Point, NSO, etc.)
- No *direct* evidence of active IDF ties — typical Valley guilt-by-background.
Original quote: “at some point in 2022, them and a group known as Perimeter X actually joined forces. And Perimeter X from my understanding is an Israeli startup. Uh so again for a lot of people who were looking deeper into this some even connected them to unit 8200 which is the IDF's most like premier cyber…”
Chrome is one of the worst browsers for privacy — Opinion (80/100)
At 30:30
Fair take — Chrome's telemetry is aggressive AF. But 'worst' is subjective; it depends on your threat model.
Why this score: Chrome does send extensive telemetry to Google by default, including usage stats and crash reports. - Privacy advocates consistently rank it poorly vs Firefox forks (EFF, Restore Privacy). - Still, for non-privacy users it's fine — this is opinion colored by expertise, not hard fact. Solid perspective tho.
Original quote: “If you're using a Chrome browser and you're like, "Damn, I'm getting [ __ ] fingered." Well, that's your problem. You're using Google Chrome, which is arguably one of the worst browsers that I think anybody could [ __ ] use.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →