[eridius]

I'm surprised nobody here has yet questioned the wisdom of allowing Google access to literally all of your internet traffic. This is actually a commercial product that you pay money for, so maybe they're all aboveboard here, but with Google's history of trying to get as much personal data as possible about everybody makes me unwilling to trust them with something like this.

On a different note, is there any reason why someone should prefer this to Ubiquiti's AmpliFi? Unlike Google, Ubiquiti has a long history of making networking gear. The only obvious benefit I see right now is Google Wifi starts at $129 for one unit whereas AmpliFi starts at $199, but that $199 includes 2 "mesh points" and presumably to get the same effect with Google Wifi you'd have to shell out $299 for the 3-pack.

[acdha]

I realize it's popular to peddle conspiracy theories about Google in some circles but think about just how many people use Google search, Gmail, Chrome, Android, etc. – do you really think their choice of routers matters more?

There's also an inconvenient truth that such problems are greatly hindered by … Google in their prominent role improving security for average users. If their goal was to spy on people, they'd be the last to push HTTPS, HSTS, HKP, various TLS hardening, etc. rather than one of the first.

[pdkl95]

> conspiracy theories

Conspiracies do happen from time to time. Unfortunately the term "conspiracy theory" is often used to refer to unreasonable theories that are more about reinforcing preconceptions about what ought to be instead of observing what the situation actually is.

Obviously it is important to check any theory, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case, however, the claim that Google wants to get their hands on as much data as possible isn't an extraordinary claim. It isn't a conspiracy which is usually defined as a secret plan. Google is very open about their business model based on analyzing large amounts of data with modern techniques.

Calling concerns about giving even more data to Google a "conspiracy theory" not only ignores Google's business model, it also dilutes the term making an actual secret conspiracy harder to identify in the future.

> think about just how many people use Google search, Gmail, Chrome, Android, etc.

The only service that is similar to sending all of your traffic to Google is GA (Google Analytics), which most people are not using willingly. Yes, a lot of damaging analysis can be done from search/mail/etc, which is why it's a terrible idea to also include the rest of your internet traffic.

> improving security for average users

Google has done a lot of work to keep user data safe from third parties. Very little of that work prevents Google itself from seeing your data. When the default configuration isn't end-to-end encrypted, in practice this means Google is still seeing everything. Google even calls this a feature that is part of their "assistant".

> If their goal was to spy on people

So you don't think their business is based on spying on users in various ways for better ad targeting? Even though Serge Brin and Larry Page personally explained their intention to spy to CA State Sen. Liz Figueroa?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-robot-defense-...

[IMcD23]

None of those technologies you listed make it harder for Google to collect information from you, but instead make it harder for 3rd parties to intercept that data in transit.

[notatoad]

If they were attempting to collect information via your router, those technologies would absolutely hamper them.

[acdha]

Exactly right

[linsomniac]

You mean in transit like through one of their wireless APs? :-D

[lucb1e]

> I'm surprised nobody here has yet questioned the wisdom of allowing Google access to literally all of your internet traffic.

This is what I think of every time I hear of Google Fiber.