While they certainly can pull a man-in-the-middle in the cryptographic sense (DJB gave an outstanding talk[1] that discusses this problem), you seem to be assum

While they certainly can pull a man-in-the-middle in the cryptographic sense (DJB gave an outstanding talk[1] that discusses this problem), you seem to be assuming a lot. Google doesn't get much data from me at all (spyware like google analytics is blocked at the router, and I started blocking ads before Firefox existed). Even if you ignore that, there is a lot of traffic that Google normally doesn't have access to that they would be able to log as the ISP. They get some of this already when people choose to hand Google their DNS traffic, but being the ISP makes this complete. You may want to also watch Aral Balkan's talk posted just above DJB's at the same URL; he does a better job than I can at describing how Google (and Facebook, etc) are using surveillance-as-a-business-model. > Google Fiber's privacy policy The risk of a national security letter (which the part you quoted includes as an exception) is already enough of a reason to limit how much personal data is in a single database, that's not the main problem. That policy isn't a binding contract. Do you really think it won't be changed the moment someone at Google decides it would be profitable? They promised "Nest" data would stay separate, too, which quickly changed to sharing "limited" data. Sorry, but promises not to snoop don't mean much when the promise contradicts their business model. [1] https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html#bernstein https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...