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&#x27;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&#x27;t have access to that they would be able to log as the ISP.<p>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&#x27;s talk posted just above DJB&#x27;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.<p>&gt; Google Fiber&#x27;s privacy policy<p>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&#x27;s not the main problem. That policy isn&#x27;t a binding contract. Do you really think it won&#x27;t be changed the moment someone at Google decides it would be profitable?<p>They promised &quot;Nest&quot; data would stay separate, too, which quickly changed to sharing &quot;limited&quot; data. Sorry, but promises not to snoop don&#x27;t mean much when the promise contradicts their business model.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;projectbullrun.org&#x2F;surveillance&#x2F;2015&#x2F;video-2015.html#bernstein" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;projectbullrun.org&#x2F;surveillance&#x2F;2015&#x2F;video-2015.html...</a>