# Is Google VPN trustable? **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/is-google-vpn-trustable/35474 **Category:** Questions **Created:** 2026-02-14T05:36:09Z **Posts:** 51 ## Post 1 by @iluvprivacy — 2026-02-14T05:36:09Z The Google Pixel series comes with a free Google VPN. Is this trustworthy? Would you use it? --- ## Post 2 by @FranklyFlawless — 2026-02-14T05:38:59Z > [@iluvprivacy](#): > > Is this trustworthy? It depends on your threat model, use case(s) and workflow. > [@iluvprivacy](#): > > Would you use it? Never. --- ## Post 3 by @fria — 2026-02-14T05:53:49Z Google’s VPN is interesting because it uses [blind signatures](https://store.google.com/intl/en_au/ideas/articles/pixel-security-with-google-one/#:~:text=Google%20uses%20a%20technique%20called%20%E2%80%9Cblind%20signing%2C%E2%80%9D%20which%20separates%20your%20Google%20Account%20from%20the%20servers%20that%20route%20your%20traffic.) to separate your traffic from your account. The only other VPN I’ve seen that does that is Apple’s Private Relay. Google’s VPN doesn’t have the same two-hop architecture as [Private Relay](https://support.apple.com/en-us/102602) so it’s not quite as good, but you actually don’t have to trust Google as much as most other VPN providers. --- ## Post 4 by @privacyisconsent — 2026-02-14T08:12:07Z > [@fria](#): > > Google’s VPN is interesting because it uses [blind signatures](https://store.google.com/intl/en_au/ideas/articles/pixel-security-with-google-one/#:~:text=Google%20uses%20a%20technique%20called%20%E2%80%9Cblind%20signing%2C%E2%80%9D%20which%20separates%20your%20Google%20Account%20from%20the%20servers%20that%20route%20your%20traffic.) to separate your traffic from your account. The only other VPN I’ve seen that does that is Apple’s Private Relay. Vaguely related prior art from research: 1. [SnowHaze VPN](https://snowhaze.com/en/support-resources.html#support-zka-info) ~2020 ([techincal doc](https://blog.snowhaze.com/infographic-zero-knowledge-auth-explained/)) 2. [Brave VPN](https://brave.com/blog/brave-and-guardian/) ~2020 ([no technical doc?](https://guardianapp.com/policy/service-policies/#separation-of-subscriber-data-and-vpn-infrastructure)) 3. [Google VPN](https://cathieyun.medium.com/adventures-with-rsa-blind-signing-397035585121) ~2021 ([technical doc](https://www.gstatic.com/subscriptions/marketing_page/vpn/white_paper_4f995ab5d7c7edc3d3f14f2e0593f790.pdf)) 4. [Apple iCloud+ Private Relay](https://developer.apple.com/icloud/prepare-your-network-for-icloud-private-relay/) ~2021 ([technical PDF!](https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iCloud_Private_Relay_Overview_Dec2021.PDF)) 5. [Microsoft Edge Secure Network](https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-now-powering-microsoft-edge-secure-network/) ~2023 ([technical doc](https://developers.cloudflare.com/privacy-proxy/concepts/authentication/#privacy-pass-tokens)) --- ## Post 5 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T09:25:40Z At this point, from all that we know about Google, it is safe and fair to simply discount anything from Google from a privacy POV. --- ## Post 8 by @KathyM — 2026-02-14T15:35:18Z It’s terrific for specific edge cases like “America and your country hate each other”. America doesn’t give a shit about your Google data, and your country’s data requests get ignored. I am not your lawyer --- ## Post 10 by @username-is-not — 2026-02-14T19:24:20Z ^^ Like people have said, considering how Google is (most probably the) NSA /Mossad then, no you can’t _trust_ it for anything, ofc. Being anon is super-hard -these days- anyway, your NIC (network card) has a MAC address which must be spoofed, and other hw parameters which can be read /used as identifiers. You’d have to hop around a lot, and across machines; even “Mullvad VPN” or, any single one thing can always be compromised (and for a number of different reasons); aanyway :slight_smile: P.S. I suppose that I might use a VPN to ssh to a VPS machine and tor from there to whatever it is, something like that (& ofc., you need a dedicated firewall on your end, and not-your-WiFi either, right) **EDIT** : Oh, yea, and from Android there are nice approaches, such as: 1) InviZible Pro and 2) the Rethink DNS + Firewall app. **EDIT** : `https://itsignacioportal.github.io/firewall-and-vpn-without-root-on-android-2026/` --- ## Post 11 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T19:40:49Z Might be interesting for people who often use insecure public wifi and are not willing to buy a VPN. --- ## Post 12 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-02-14T20:00:34Z I would keep this in mind: [When Facebook Used VPN to Secretly Spy on Snapchat, YouTube, and Rival Apps](https://www.analyticsinsight.net/news/when-facebook-used-vpn-to-secretly-spy-on-snapchat-youtube-and-rival-apps) . Even if what @fria mentioned works well enough to not tie it to your account, google surely is going to use this data somehow. Don’t give them more power/data. --- ## Post 13 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T20:15:07Z > I would keep this in mind: [When Facebook Used VPN to Secretly Spy on Snapchat, YouTube, and Rival Apps](https://www.analyticsinsight.net/news/when-facebook-used-vpn-to-secretly-spy-on-snapchat-youtube-and-rival-apps) . Are you actually comparing Google to Meta? Yes, while I agree that Google is not your friend the evilness coming from Meta is way higher than from Google. Meta hacked multiple times their own users. --- ## Post 14 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T20:16:02Z The fact that people are even asking about the privacy protection legitimacy from a Google product (of all things) in 2026 just goes to show how oblivious people. I personally can’t compute the rationale with which someone may think - sure, I think using a VPN from Google is a good idea or anything along these lines. Perhaps I am too privileged enough to be educated in this matter in the privacy space. --- ## Post 15 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T20:17:37Z You know that a Pixel smartphone counts as a Google product, right? I wouldn’t 100% agree with it, but I get your point. --- ## Post 16 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T20:19:04Z Let me correct myself. A software product from Google. Geez.. I thought it was clear. The pedantry feels unwarranted especially given this thread. --- ## Post 17 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T20:22:54Z Even with GOS if you buy a Pixel you still have some kind of software from Google (low level firmware and so on). --- ## Post 18 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T20:31:52Z Seeing that we are speaking about the privacy protections on this thread here, what you’re saying would not even qualify as a tertiary concern in the slightest seeing that GOS is and can be used fully without anything Google related on it should one so chooses to. The logic with with you’re trying to counter me with what I said and in the context with how I meant it does not apply to my comment and in my view is coming off as an overly obtuse comment/view from you (which is surprising as I’ve seen you be active here and on Techlore for a while now and thought you knew better). Sorry. That’s how it reads to me. But sure… you can feel right in the fact that GOS is from AOSP which is from Google which you can also qualify as a Google product. Is that the right way to look at it when speaking of GOS? There is a clear answer in my head for this question but everyone is entitled to deduce it however they like. These are just my honest views expressed as clearly as I can. Please only infer from it to the extent of what I wrote and nothing more (because I don’t mean anything more than what I said). --- ## Post 19 by @null — 2026-02-14T20:32:56Z Let us be honest, no one would recommend Pixels from a privacy point of view if you wasn’t able to unlock and replace the stock OS. --- ## Post 20 by @Scott — 2026-02-14T20:33:19Z > [@iluvprivacy](#): > > Would you use it? Absolutely not because I don’t trust Google. --- ## Post 21 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T20:38:47Z I’m not talking about ASOP rather than low-level code like verified boot or other code on this level, which as far as I understand it is from Google and GOS doesn’t replace it. --- ## Post 22 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T20:39:42Z Fascinating to see you doubling down. I’m done. --- ## Post 23 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T20:40:24Z > [@anon4124882](#): > > Fascinating to see you doubling down. If my statement is false, say it. --- ## Post 24 by @Cyber-Typhoon — 2026-02-14T20:46:43Z > Are you actually comparing Google to Meta? Birds of a feather --- ## Post 25 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T20:49:29Z Speaking from a privacy POV/mindset, all of big tech may as well be the same company. They are all doing same or similar things for themselves in the name continuing to keep providing “value” to their “customers”. From a practical and pragmatic POV, there should be no differentiation. If one still feels that a differentiation is warranted, I can only think it’s because of ones lack of understanding of the industry and surveillance (late stage) capitalism at large. --- ## Post 26 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T21:03:29Z So at this point apple is as bad as meta or Microsoft? --- ## Post 27 by @null — 2026-02-14T21:19:59Z I fail to see your point. I think we all wish we could escape big tech services if we could but the reality is we can’t make ours own phones it doesn’t really matter if it is Google, Apple, Samsung, LG or Sony. We just have to choose the best OEM for ours goal, it just happened to be a Pixel I don’t think anyone is happy about it. The different here is Google VPN is a chose if you trust Google then fine use it. We can’t really say if it is good or bad from a privacy point of view yet. --- ## Post 28 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T21:24:14Z From at least an enshittification POV, they are getting there fast. Some may argue Apple is fully there. From a privacy POV, they are not doing enough anymore for their users nor providing then with built in easy to use and toggle tools. Had they released their own easy to use VPN with oroer privacy protections for the device and all apps, had they made it possible to block each apps connection to the internet in full whether on WiFi or cellular, had they jumped on board with realizing the benefits of RCS much sooner, had they included Mail and others in their ADP by now, had they actually made a proper password manager with integration of aliasing the already provide with apps for other operating systems - I would still be on Apple’s side. But I’m tired of giving them the benefit of the doubt they used to deserve. --- ## Post 29 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T21:24:25Z @anon4124882 says in hist post that he can’t understand people that question if google products have some privacy. This means that he assume that every product is already privacy invasive from Google. If you think this further this would also mean that the pixel hardware itself is privacy invasive (some really low level code). If you assume Google has actual privacy invasions in such low-level code than it would mean you can’t buy a pixel if honor privacy and might use an alternative like apple (if you don’t think the same way about apple) --- ## Post 30 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T21:25:31Z You’re clearly and knowingly misrepresenting facts. I also clarified software products from Google. Apps and such. This is not a discussion of hardware. I don’t understand why you don’t understand this. --- ## Post 31 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T21:26:23Z So you differentiate between apple and meta. But why is this in google and meta not the same case? I see the difference between apple and google, google and meta, meta and apple. --- ## Post 32 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T21:28:16Z > I don’t understand why you don’t understand this. Because you differentiate between hard and software. Which doesn’t make sense. If Google is soo evil, then why are you not assuming this on the hardware site too? I don’t see any rational logic why you see hardware and software from the same vendor complete different in the aspect of privacy and security. --- ## Post 33 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T21:33:25Z You ostensibly appear to be unable to fathom what and how I mean from all that I am saying in this thread. And I am at the end my capacity to yield the English language such that you can understand. I don’t believe it’s possible because there is clearly a more fundamental cultural difference or a difference in reading and comprehending English itself. Perhaps someone else can do it better but there are only so many permutations and combinations of words that can be used for the same. I don’t know which will work however. --- ## Post 34 by @anon4124882 — 2026-02-14T21:35:57Z By default and with the very close hardware and software integration that comes with a Pixel, they are all bad. But you keep changing the goalpost to GOS from Google VPN and now you hardware with stock Android when the discussion was about GOS which in turn wasn’t even the original point of this thread in the first place. I genuinely thought better of you as a lurker for so long, though I am glad for the revelation. --- ## Post 35 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T21:40:17Z > But you keep changing the goalpost to GOS from Google VPN No, I just stated to say a company is bad and should not be questioning if a product (google VPN) from them is good, while also recommending a different product from the company (pixel) is contradictory. I’m not changing the topic, I’m comparing the topic. > you hardware with stock Android when the discussion was about GOS Where did I ever talk about stock android? --- ## Post 36 by @privacy.slouchy — 2026-02-14T21:44:17Z This is just a conversation about [threat models](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/threat-modeling/), right? VPNs are a tool with different use cases: ## [Surveillance Capitalism](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/common-threats/#surveillance-as-a-business-model) I would not consider this trustworthy. Even with encryption like SSL, Google will see the sites/servers accessed by your account & surely find a way to profit off that data Edit: as [@fria pointed out](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/is-google-vpn-trustable/35474/3), Google claims to employ techniques that mitigate any means by which to link VPN traffic & your Google account. Taken at face value (big if), users would allegedly have _anonymity_, though I believe the _privacy_ of that anonymized data would still be at risk ## Adversarial Governments probably not. Google has a tendency to [openly comply with government requests](https://www.govtech.com/security/what-happens-when-dhs-asks-google-for-your-data.html). Maybe there’s a case to make that _certain_ governments with adversarial relationships to the US _may_ be safe… But given how [hungry Google is for global marketshare](https://globalvoices.org/2024/05/16/google-blocks-access-to-pro-democracy-protest-song-in-hong-kong-after-court-ruling/), I wouldn’t personally rely on any protection here ## Local Network To hide internet activity _exclusively_ from your local network and its administrators - probably fine, right? If your local network blocks some mundane service like YouTube, and you just want to access it on WiFi, this is a free VPN tool that will hide your activity. There is a strong case to make that free VPNs from providers like Mulvad or Proton are preferable on ideological grounds, but from a functional standpoint, I think VPN by Google would be fine for this specific, singular threat model --- ## Post 39 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-02-14T22:06:47Z I see no difference. --- ## Post 40 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T22:11:07Z Did google every **bypass** security mechanisms in place to **spy** on their users? --- ## Post 41 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-02-14T22:29:57Z Well given google controls Chrome and Android that is a bit of a hard comparison. But afaik no. However Google has definitely favoured spying on their users over security measures in several occasions. Like for example with not blocking third party scripts and cookies and other insecure browsing practises or granting themselves deeplevel control in standard android phones. --- ## Post 42 by @dadnerd — 2026-02-14T22:57:44Z > [@Onscreen5341](#): > > Are you actually comparing Google to Meta? Yes. Google is one of the most evil companies to ever exist. > [@Onscreen5341](#): > > So at this point apple is as bad as meta or Microsoft? Basically yes. The latest version of their OSes defaults to harvesting all of your activity and data from all of your apps in order to train their AI. People, generally speaking will not know to go though and flip the 3 toggles necessary to disable this for every single app they already have and every single app they install in the future. This is egregious behaviour from Apple. They are not to be trusted. > [@Onscreen5341](#): > > If you think this further this would also mean that the pixel hardware itself is privacy invasive (some really low level code). NO. With stock Android, yes. The hardware itself can be made secure. GOS can be made to make essentially zero connections to any Google server, and the connections it makes do not provide useful information to Google. (GOS can possilby be configured to make zero connections to Google at this point, I haven’t kept up with all the recent privacy updates.) > [@Onscreen5341](#): > > Did google every **bypass** security mechanisms in place to **spy** on their users? Yes. Google has been caught activating microphones without consent (as well as hundreds of other purposeful privacy violations). This is just what they have been CAUGHT doing. Google is an absolutely trash company and should be out of business. [Google to pay $68m to settle lawsuit claiming it recorded private conversations](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g38jv8zzwo) Please stop blowing up the forum with this weird, pedantic discussion. (No, I will not reply to you.) --- ## Post 43 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T23:24:26Z > NO. With stock Android, yes. The hardware itself can be made secure. GOS can be made to make No, GOS doesnt replace deep low-level code like verified boot or the adaptive battery health. > Yes. Google has been caught activating microphones without consent You are talking about google assistent, which only works with consent given **while** setting up the phone, creating a google account or on first use. Also the article says “inadvertently”. There is a big difference between users who send google by accident personal data and google actively bypassing security systems. --- ## Post 44 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-14T23:26:20Z Yeah, I see your point here. Still comparing google to meta isn’t right. Meta has done so many things way more fucked up than Google. --- ## Post 45 by @win11.shading291 — 2026-02-17T16:02:50Z > [@Onscreen5341](#): > > Still comparing google to meta isn’t right. Meta has done so many things way more fucked up than Google. I actually agree with this. Meta is way worse. Doesn’t mean Google isn’t still terrible. --- ## Post 46 by @username-is-not — 2026-02-17T17:38:46Z > [@Onscreen5341](#): > > Might be interesting for people who often use insecure public wifi and are not willing to buy a VPN. Opera browser has a built-in VPN, I suppose all users around the world are sharing it type-thing; and then for whoever is bothered to register (and go through the email confirmation process), ProtonVPN has a free tier, IDK. --- ## Post 47 by @Onscreen5341 — 2026-02-17T18:14:53Z Their is evidance against the VPN of Opera GX. As far as I know no one has any evidance against the Google VPN for now? --- ## Post 48 by @FranklyFlawless — 2026-02-18T04:26:12Z I do not think there is any particular evidence or testimony against Google VPN itself, but the main question about trusting Google VPN is highly dependent on the individual. Once trust becomes part of the equation, then it becomes important to understand how far that trust extends. In this case, not only are you trusting Google VPN, but you are also irrefutably trusting Google. --- ## Post 49 by @ignoramous — 2026-03-01T19:19:46Z > [@ph00lt0](#): > > google surely is going to use this data somehow If you won’t back that up, I’ll take that as spreading FUD. > [@privacyisconsent](#): > > Vaguely related prior art from research Brilliant collection. Thanks (: > [@fria](#): > > Google’s VPN is interesting because it uses [blind signatures](https://store.google.com/intl/en_au/ideas/articles/pixel-security-with-google-one/) to separate your traffic from your account. The use of blind sigs by OneVPN was to separate authorization & identity. There’s other ways to achieve this separation at various levels but by far, imo, blind sigs / privacy pass are the most sophisticated ones. --- ## Post 50 by @anon51983832 — 2026-03-01T19:34:34Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/ph00lt0/48/6697_2.png) ph00lt0: > > > google surely is going to use this data somehow > > If you won’t back that up, I’ll take that as spreading FUD. Even if there’s no proof, it’s better to act “as if” there were. I mean, it’s Google. --- ## Post 51 by @anon4124882 — 2026-03-01T20:03:54Z > [@anon51983832](#): > > I mean, it’s Google. The fact that this question has already not been dismissed (no offence to OP here, truly) because we are discussing privacy from a Google product is beyond me. Even if Google forks Mullvad and makes it their own and gets it audited independently with results of flying colors, I still won’t trust it.