Slashdot Mirror
Google Street View Moves Indoors
Hugh Pickens writes "Google is taking its Street View mapping service indoors with plans moving ahead for 360-degree Business Photos, a program that would send Google photographers to various businesses to snap professional photos for their Places Page. 'This experience, using Street View technology, includes 360-degree imagery of the business interior and storefront,' says Google. 'With this immersive imagery, potential customers can easily imagine themselves at the business and decide if they want to visit in person.' Photographs are taken by 'trusted' photographers, though businesses can also upload their own images via Google Places. It's starting with businesses 'that we know are searched for most regularly,' like restaurants, hotels, retail shops, gyms, salons, and repair shops. Taking internal photos and posting them online brings up some security questions, but Google says its photographs will 'capture nothing different to what a customer would see by visiting the business in real life.'"
Google: You're not supposed to use April Fools jokes as product ideas. Sincerely, Already Nervous Google Users Everywhere
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The had part: getting that car in through the front door.
Already have done this with my business some time ago. I wouldn't call this new news. It's not like they bust in and snap the photos without the business owner's permission. It's opt-in, and it's a good idea for businesses that would like the marketing boost. Cutting in through the ceiling to avoid motion detectors? You guys have been watching WAY too many heist movies. Ever tried operating a concrete saw at night? Good luck not attracting attention. It's just as easy for a criminal to walk into a place, walk around, get a feel, maybe snap some photos on their cell phone (increasingly commonplace), buy a cheap item to keep from looking suspicious, and walk out.
The FAQ covers this
"4. How are business photos collected?
Business photos are being gathered by a team of Google trusted photographers with permission from the businesses involved. These are local photographers who service your neighborhood."
"8. Who from my business can give permission to Google to take photos?
You can only apply for a business photo shoot if you have the proper authority to allow a Google trusted photographer access to the business premises to collect photographs, and to allow Google to use those photographs in its products and services. For example, you might be the owner of the business, or a director or manager with sufficient authority to make those commitments on behalf of the business. Please note that by submitting your application for a business photo shoot you are confirming with Google that you have the authority to make that commitment."
While a store's local manager might accidentally go against the wishes of the higher ups this is true for any business decision. I think the critical point with respect to security is that this is explicitly opt-in, so the businesses can decide on the security risk for themselves.
I stole this Sig
Funny how in the last discussion on a topic like this, something about a rule against photos in a mall in Scotland, the concensus seemed to be that you have the right to take photos...
As much as I dislike Google and surveillance society, this is neither surveillance nor shocking. There is nothing that will be shown that you could not see on your own going into the store. I don't really see how in this case you having the right to take and presumably distribute photos is any different than Google doing so. Yes, they are a company and not a person, but that distinction only matters in some cases. If Google doesn't have the right to, you won't pretty damn soon yourself. Think about that.
Is it a little scary that there might be a database of interiors of buildings? Maybe; but on the other hand, almost no one seems to bat an eye at the millions of surveillance cameras that take and stream video to who knows where (other than Youtube. Funny how that works). I don't really see how static photos is in any way shocking when that is the norm. I suppose things are only scary if they are new and scary, something that just shows intellectual laziness.
Great Intellect...
Just wait until google goatse (beta) starts taking pictures.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I, as well as millions of other people, would find this incredibly useful.
To be able to see the insides of places you may or may not visit would be very handy in decision making.
Feel a little Italian, find a nice authentic Italian restaurant. The look and feel counts just as much as the food does. (in a lot of peoples opinions)
The only problem I see with this is interior changes. Not such a huge problem with maps, but inside views can change frequently in some cases, especially stores, so it gives a false sense of what it'd look like now.
Goatse is a photographic paradox - in traditional photography, aperture size decreases depth of field.
Won't be too much longer before Google announces their new "virtual storefront" technology, allowing shoppers to visit stores online in a virtual fashion, picking through actual, real-time merchandise and ordering it online with their credit card (via another Google service, of course). The customer gets a richer shopping experience from the comfort of their living room, the business doesn't have to deal with as much foot traffic, and Google gets a small percentage of every transaction.
Look out, eBay, Google's coming for you.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
There are many reasons most stores do not allow customers to take photos. I predict most chains will be issuing memos to their stores reminding them of the policy against allowing photos.
I'm sure many will, but I doubt it's going to be due do any well-founded fears. Businesses—especially large chains—simply tend to be very conservative, and extremely control-freaky. They simply hate and fear anything that isn't under their control.
I had the odd experience recently of taking cell-phone picture of a shelf of books at a bookstore. Not the store in general, no people, no wide view, just a big shelf of books. Not a closeup of a cover or title page, or, well, anything; the titles are probably barely readable. But the result was that the store clerk flipped out, and threw himself in front of me to block the camera, saying no photos, no photos, etc... I asked him why, and he sort of blathered "you might post it to the internet", "it might be a copyright violation", "some titles might be recognizable", etc. Anyway, the point was that he really didn't have a reason, he was just afraid, of vague murky threats, and in this state of fear, simply wasn't very rational.
And that state of vague irrational fear is the rule more than it's the exception in this sort of situation.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
From the summary:
Taking internal photos and posting them online brings up some security questions, but Google says its photographs will 'capture nothing different to what a customer would see by visiting the business in real life.'"
And it also raises other equally valid questions like should I eat lunch today, and how far will it be to the nearest toilet if I get a sudden attack of diarrhoea. Oh wait, no it doesn't.
If Google "indoor" images are as precise and updated as frequently as Google streetview images, neither of those will be a concern. The abseiling, chute-dropping, motion detection-avoiding criminals will be a good 20 feet away from where they thought they'd be, and the trip & fall lawyer will be readying a case about some feature that was changed 9 months ago.