[antsar]

Sorry to be "that guy", but how about not giving an advertisement company access to all your network traffic (while paying them for the privilege)...

Almost every router supports some form of remote management (or just put TeamViewer on their machine). Most also support dynamic DNS so you can set up a ping check for the "its down" notification.

[Sodman]

The fact that I've paid them for the hardware gives me more confidence that I'm not the product. Ironically, the fact that I can get TeamViewer for free and use it to get remote access others' computers makes it feel like a higher threat attack vector for me.

Before I bought the Google mesh wifi, I already had android, chrome, project Fi, and Google's DNS (router level) at various levels of my request stack. That's not even counting search, gmail, and calendar. If Google are playing shady games with my network traffic, whatever marginal gain they get from having software on my router is negligible. Especially compared to the awful PR backlash they'd get once somebody hooks some monitoring gear up to their hardware and exposes it.

[antsar]

> the fact that I can get TeamViewer for free and use it to get remote access others' computers makes it feel like a higher threat attack vector for me.

I agree. I gave that example because I personally use it, but would prefer to move to a self-hosted or inexpensive paid solution. I've always assumed the free version has sufficient business value as a lead-generator for the enterprise version, but there's no reason to assume they don't also monetize usage data.

> I already had android, chrome, project Fi, and Google's DNS ... whatever marginal gain they get from having software on my router is negligible.

That's a totally fair way of looking at it, and I'd probably use Google Wifi with little hesitation if I were you. But this isn't the case for everyone. IMHO tech folks need to be mindful of privacy implications when recommending tech to non-tech folks, because we have the benefit of understanding those implications. FWIW, my immediate family would be displeased if I installed a Google router for them and they later figured out Google's conflict of interest for themselves.

[sdinsn]

You are concerned about Google having "access" to network traffic, but you have no concerns about putting TeamViewer on someone else's machine?

[antsar]

TeamViewer's publicly-known business model has nothing to do with advertising or otherwise monetizing your private data, while Google's does. There's nothing inconsistent about using one while avoiding the other.

That said, I agree TeamViewer in a position to collect & monetize my usage by nature of being cloud-dependent & closed-source. I'd rather use an open-source self-hosted option. Haven't found a good one yet, but that doesn't mean we should ignore privacy hazards where they can be easily avoided.

[jeffbee]

Sorry to say that you are "that guy" and your comment, in addition to adding nothing to this conversation, also detracts from HN generally and contributes to the perception that it is an unserious place haunted by the deranged and irrational.

"Google Wifi and Nest Wifi devices do not track the websites you visit or collect the content of any traffic on your network."

[antsar]

Disagree about "adding nothing". We're talking about hardware for nontechnical family/friends, who might not understand the conflict of interest. It's not nice to project your apathy/disbelief that Google would abuse the access onto those people.

The name-calling is really not necessary. Why not make your point on its own merits?

The doc[0] you're quoting continues to list a bunch of things they do collect, including some with no opt-out. Way to cherry-pick.

Even the part you quoted does not exclude traffic metadata.

[0] https://support.google.com/wifi/answer/6246642?hl=en