Jiminy christmas. I made a comment on hackernews and you're trying to parse it like we're in a court of law.
The fact is that Google is different than a mom and pop shop with a video camera. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Also, I don't recall comparing Google to smaller organizations.
I may be oversensitive, but when I hear terms like "They are a public resource" I assume you mean that they should therefore be regulated by the government and paid for with tax money.
I made a flippant comment following this thread of conversation:
> Is this really that different from police asking for security camera footage from a convenience store after a robbery?
> I think legally, Google is no different than any other business.
And when I came back to the thread there was a series of comments parsing my words.
I overreacted to the group and you were the target of that over-reaction.
> They have a de-facto monopoly as the largest search provider for the general populace. > They are a public resource that is a requirement for many of us to use in our day to day lives.
Wait, what? Has the "defacto monopoly" been legally established? They're a "public resource?" Please cite the legal meaning of "public resource" and where it was established through legislation or judicial action that Google is one?