Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Street View Moves Indoors

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the i'm-not-sure-the-cars-will-fit dept.

Google 116

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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Watch out (1)

Hapless Hero (786287) | about 3 years ago | (#37882638)

Next they'll be asking us if pictures of our homes are okay.

Re:Watch out (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882656)

What, do you have something to hide?

Re:Watch out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882716)

Yep. Which is why I'd say "No", and that would be the end of it.

Re:Watch out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882734)

most likely has p0rn scattered about.

Re:Watch out (1)

Dwonis (52652) | about 3 years ago | (#37888680)

Don't you?

Re:Watch out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882730)

They already do take pictures of the interior of most homes when you sell a house.
I would assume most real estate companies already have collections of the interiors of the homes the sell, or have sold.

Re:Watch out (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about 3 years ago | (#37882804)

Just wait until google goatse (beta) starts taking pictures.

Re:Watch out (2, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 3 years ago | (#37882868)

Goatse is a photographic paradox - in traditional photography, aperture size decreases depth of field.

Re:Watch out (1)

Nationless (2123580) | about 3 years ago | (#37883802)

And I will say no.

Re:Watch out (2)

terrox (555131) | about 3 years ago | (#37884096)

"photographs will 'capture nothing different to what a customer would see" - which is what they'd say about visitors to your home and it is obviously way too far. The Google stance is dangerous direction, "why not" doesn't apply to everything in life and I can think of tons of reasons why not. More like, "we're creepy and we will push you until you break, then back off, then push again once you're not looking".

Re:Watch out (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about 3 years ago | (#37885280)

"photographs will 'capture nothing different to what a customer would see" - which is what they'd say about visitors to your home and it is obviously way too far.

Complete bullshit.

People can't walk in off the street to your home and take photos. They can in (most) businesses, and post them on their blogs, Twitter, etc, etc.

And in any case, the "inside photos" are only being taken WITH THE EXPRESS PERMISSION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS, (from TFA:"Business photos are being gathered by a team of Google trusted photographers with permission from the businesses involved") because they want to publicise their business. It's a form of ADVERTISING. If you run a sex cam business from your bedroom, you may ask them to visit your home. Otherwise, probably not.

Re:Watch out (1)

Gerzel (240421) | about 3 years ago | (#37884448)

As long as they are asking before there is nothing wrong with it.

Asking (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 years ago | (#37888310)

The key here is *asking*. As long as they take a polite no for an answer and move along, i don't care what they *ask*.

Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882670)

Now I can plan my armed robberies/burglaries without having to waste gas on driving to the place of business to scope out the place :)

Re:Awesome! (1)

lucm (889690) | about 3 years ago | (#37883868)

If you were a real pro, you'd say "case the joint", not "scope out the place". Gotcha!

There are reasons stores do not allow photos (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882694)

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.

In real life, lawyers cannot sit in their offices and look for potential trip and fall hazards to exploit. Criminals cannot take detailed photos of the interior so they know exactly where to cut through the ceiling at night to avoid motion detectors. 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.

Re:There are reasons stores do not allow photos (4, Informative)

quantaman (517394) | about 3 years ago | (#37882772)

The FAQ [slashdot.org] 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.

Re:There are reasons stores do not allow photos (4, Interesting)

macshit (157376) | about 3 years ago | (#37883334)

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.

Re:There are reasons stores do not allow photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883616)

That kind of behavior is common in large chain stores where employees are required to follow a large number of "operating procedures" imposed by "corporate". End result is odd situations like what happened to the parent: the clerk is reacting that way because he is under threat of some type of disciplinary action for failing to follow the correct procedure, regardless of whether the procedure makes any sense, and regardless of whether the clerk actually understands why he is doing it.

As far as using pictures of the interior of a business for crime-related purposes, it's highly unlikely that such a person would be obvious about what they were doing. more than likely they would have a small camera hidden in their clothing or peeking out of a pocket, etc.

Re:There are reasons stores do not allow photos (1)

Shazback (1842686) | about 3 years ago | (#37885604)

Or would walk around the store with the phone at their ear, talking to it, whilst actually recording/taking photos at a regular interval.

If higher quality was required, social engineering : "Hi, I've been sent by HQ/Regional Management/Markeing & Sales Advisory/OHSA to check that you're following best-in-class store organization principles. Please sign here to notify that you were present when I made this visit, thank you, and now I'll go around and fill out my checklist. I'll need to take some photos too. Thanks".

Re:There are reasons stores do not allow photos (1)

Sepultura (150245) | about 3 years ago | (#37885180)

Likely his actual reason was that he was told not to allow it by his manager or boss. It's common, especially with larger chains, not to allow photographs of their setups for very reasonable reasons. One very simple reason is that some store managers or those under them may screw up a display in a way that makes it offensive or otherwise humiliating to the corporation at large. If an image were to get out it would reflect badly on them. Just look at failblog and similar sites and you'll see lots of examples of this problem cropping up. Walmart, in particular, has very strict rules to avoid this happening (as well as for reasons of competition), and many smaller chains have adopted the same "no camera" stance just because they do it.

Re:There are reasons stores do not allow photos (2)

Shazback (1842686) | about 3 years ago | (#37885590)

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.

Re:There are reasons stores do not allow photos (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 3 years ago | (#37886920)

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.

peopleofwalmart.com is probably right at the top of the list.

It's opt in for now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882696)

Opt out if you have something to hide!

umm... (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 3 years ago | (#37882746)

Google: You're not supposed to use April Fools jokes as product ideas. Sincerely, Already Nervous Google Users Everywhere

Re:umm... (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | about 3 years ago | (#37882898)

Google's product plan isn't about asking "why?"; it's about asking "why not?".

Of course, that why not is usually answered and then they junk the product after a few months.

Re:umm... (1)

jgeiger (1356045) | about 3 years ago | (#37883082)

Why not? It's working just fine for Blizzard and World of Warcraft...

Re:umm... (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 3 years ago | (#37883134)

What? Why? A lot of businesses already take pics of their store for their website. This'll just make it a little easier to find and less work on the owners part. Win-win. In theory.

Re:umm... (3, Insightful)

lucm (889690) | about 3 years ago | (#37883900)

> Win-win

Actually it's win-win-win:
1) Win for Google
2) Win for the owners
3) Win for the debit cards clone artists who will be able to find stores where the pinpads are easy to access without having to send Ahmed or Jamal all over town (too bad for Ahmed and Jamal, it was a cool gig and they had the chance to drive the BMW and listen to loud eurodance)

Re:umm... (2)

smurfsurf (892933) | about 3 years ago | (#37886882)

Yes, yes. And we better stop Google Streetview altogether because of possible burglars and Google Earth because of possible terrorists!

Re:umm... (1)

lucm (889690) | about 3 years ago | (#37887090)

No identity theft, no burglaries, no terrorism... what would Ahmed and Jamal do without Google? The shishtaouk deli and car-wash markets are getting crowded.

Re:umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37889504)

Maybe Ahmed and Jamal can scout around on Google and find delis and car-wash markets that are less crowded

Technical difficulties (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882748)

The had part: getting that car in through the front door.

Re:Technical difficulties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883298)

Getting the car through the front door is the easy part, getting it back out again is the hard one.

Re:Technical difficulties (3, Funny)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | about 3 years ago | (#37883318)

Getting the car through the front door is the easy part, getting it back out again is the hard one.

Why is that? Just drive out through the hole you made when you drove in.

Re:Technical difficulties (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 3 years ago | (#37884704)

    It's not necessarily so easy.. Bent rebar or other metals can hang the vehicle. Tires can be punctured by the broken glass and metal debris. If you drive nose first, you may break the headlights, corner lights, windshield, and get something impaled in the radiator. Driving in backwards may result in a broken taillight, and potentially piercing the fuel tank on debris.

    Then there are all the attention concerns. Someone's bound to of heard it. If not, a cop will eventually. Broken lights, windows, and assorted body damage will be a dead giveaway.

    I know perfectly well I can't do it. The way my luck runs, if I were to ever do something like that, the police would happen to drive by right as I was entering the building. No amount of superb planning can make up for dumb luck.

Re:Technical difficulties (2)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | about 3 years ago | (#37886312)

Wow, you have put a significant amount of consideration into this..... you planning something?

Re:Technical difficulties (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 3 years ago | (#37887364)

Nope. I've spent a good bit of time considering what could be done. Doing "what if's" in my head (or on paper, and researching them), including information from what other people have done, if a fun hobby. It doesn't just apply to stuff like this.

The conclusion I've come to on illegal activity is, dumb luck is against me. I couldn't ever do anything illegal, because I will be caught. Or at very least, the profit versus the risk is too low.

What is one year of my life lost in jail worth? I'm not willing to accept any amount of money (goods, etc) for that.

What if someone got hurt or killed? I'm not willing to accept any amount for the consequences of that.

Here's a dumb example. It really happened. In the middle of the night, someone shot out the front windows (and glass door) of a friends store. They found one bullet lodged in a wall. The rest passed through the interior walls, and most likely hit the warehouse area. Some of the bullet holes indicated the shots had gone straight past one of the registers.

They had been working late for the last week. Part of that work did involve standing at that particular register. They just happened to go home a bit earlier that night (before midnight), so the place was empty. From outside, you couldn't tell the difference, as you couldn't see from the front door/window area to that register.

The police didn't follow up on the case, because it was only property damage, and no large theft nor injury.

I helped them review the security tapes. The footage wasn't great, but we did manage to put together about 3 minutes, which showed a particular vehicle with some identifying characteristics. We couldn't read any writing on the vehicle, nor the license plate. We got the staff together, and we went through exactly what we knew. It was a vehicle of this type, with these characteristics. Did any customers have a vehicle like that? There was a customer, who hadn't been in in a couple months. They figured out his name, and there was a record of delivery to his home from about 8 months prior. Still, it wasn't enough for the police.

We drove out to the guys house, and I carried a video camera. We weren't confronting the guy, we were only gathering evidence. Is vehicle was parked in the street, and the distinguishing characteristics all matched the vehicle in the video.

It took several more days to get an audience with a detective willing to investigate it. Presented with the footage from the security camera, and the video of his vehicle parked in front of his home, they had enough probable cause to get a search warrant.

When they showed up to his house, the guy knew he was screwed. He confessed to shooting my friends store, as well as 4 other places that night, one which involved a non-fatal injury. He told the police where to find the gun (under the drivers seat of the vehicle). His story was basically that he got drunk, went for a drive, and shot at businesses that he believed had wronged him in some sort of way.

I guess I should mention, that state has rather strict laws on firearms, and virtually nobody in the area has concealed carry permits (they are very strict). Having a firearm in the vehicle, concealed under the seat is a felony.

No one knew about the concealed weapon violation, nor the DUI, until he confessed to it. And no, "I was drunk" is not an excuse.

He was arrested, and plead guilty. We weren't involved in the court events, as he confessed to everything and then some. No witnesses, other than the investigators, were required.

I don't know how long he got, but I'm sure with the charges, he got some decent time.

He almost got away with it. If we hadn't followed up with it, and pushed to get a detective to investigate it further, he may have. His dumb luck was that we put the information together, and provide it to the police.

Dumb luck is your biggest enemy, and will get you caught if you try to do anything illegal. At least it's mine. :)

Re:Technical difficulties (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883814)

The had part: getting that car in through the front door.

Keep working on that Bostonian accent. So close.

Re:Technical difficulties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884080)

The had part: getting that car in through the front door.

Keep working on that Bostonian accent. So close.

lol, i read it that way too just to be silly

Re:Technical difficulties (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 3 years ago | (#37885084)

Oblig. video [youtube.com] .

Re:Technical difficulties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37886932)

Another great joke ruined by someone who didn't bother to review his comment before posting.

Stop watching heist movies (2)

Warhawke (1312723) | about 3 years ago | (#37882754)

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.

Re:Stop watching heist movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882814)

Cutting in through the ceiling to avoid motion detectors? You guys have been watching WAY too many heist movies.

I work for a major retail chain in the U.S., and this has happened at two different locations in the last year. I also know it's happened at Target more than once as well. Just because it hasn't happened to your one store doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Ever tried operating a concrete saw at night?

A lot of these places have roofs that are essentially plywood with shingles on top. When you walk on them, they bend. It doesn't take much to cut through them, and it's not worth the expense of lining it with something that requires a concrete saw.

Re:Stop watching heist movies (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37883052)

A lot of other places just use sheet steel so thin you can poke through it with a pocket knife, I dont think some creative thief would have a problem carrying a couple hand tools in their pocket

Re:Stop watching heist movies (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | about 3 years ago | (#37883898)

Protip: Any sort of sawing on a large rigid panel (especially sheetmetal!) makes an unholy racket.

Re:Stop watching heist movies (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37884072)

who said anything about sawing, punch a hole, use tin-snips, the only thing that gives commercial metal roofs strength is the girder system and the corrugation of the metal.

Re:Stop watching heist movies (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 3 years ago | (#37884730)

    On many of the commercial roofs I've been on, they are kind enough to have skylights. Metal roofs frequently have thinner translucent panels, so they can afford to save a few bucks on their power bill. I only paid attention to them as "things not to step on". :) A screwdriver would quietly and easily remove many of them. A quick hit with a hammer may make some noise, but only for a moment.

    But why go through the trouble of getting on the roof. Most buildings have locked glass doors, and plenty of windows. A locked glass door can quickly become a locked door frame with a gaping hole in it.

    A lock pick set, and someone who actually knows how to use it, is a lot quicker, quieter, and less noticeable. It also makes the person who just got their stuff taken wondering if they left the doors unlocked that night.

    That's from the "shit I had to fix because someone else broke it" department.

   

Re:Stop watching heist movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883580)

If a criminal visits in person to take recon photos, then the business has a chance to video tape the criminal taking his recon photos.

No such opourtunity when google is doing the recon.

Re:Stop watching heist movies (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 3 years ago | (#37883970)

Ever tried operating a concrete saw at night?

You use a thermal lance.

No Problem Here (3, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | about 3 years ago | (#37882780)

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.

Actually really useful and not spooky. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882816)

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.

Re:Actually really useful and not spooky. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883006)

The look and feel counts...

Oh you Mac freaks just never give up, do you?

Re:Actually really useful and not spooky. (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | about 3 years ago | (#37885094)

Great idea! I found a picture of a nice Italian restaurant and Mamma Mia! Now my pizza tastes much better.

Re:Actually really useful and not spooky. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37885190)

I have a dream where social conditions for the rest of us are not dictated by the vacuous opinions of easily manipulated fools:

I, as well as millions of other people, would find this incredibly usefuI

s/customers/terrorists/ How about about live view so we can all see who's where at any given time... what could possibly go wrong? In the interim, enjoy looking at the decor while choking on your "creeping facism" topped pizza you inane twat!

Re:Actually really useful and not spooky. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37885404)

Feel a little Italian

Are you a Roman Catholic priest, by any chance?

Paranoia (1)

jeesis (2494876) | about 3 years ago | (#37882856)

Just wait for any phone with android to start taking random pictures that are then reviewed by people at google to compile 360 views of the interior of your home! Nah, that would be pointless but still funny if they actually wasted recourses for such a thing.

Great Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882870)

Next we just need a Grocery Store Map program... so we can get directions to the shelf containing the item we are looking for without having to wonder aimlessly around the grocery store for 10 minutes looking for an employee to ask for directions.

Or, if you combine it with the idea of shopping from your phone while at the subway: (video) http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150503629542925.

We can pretend to visit the stores with Google Maps, and then buy the items online while waiting for the subway. In a few years there will be no need for stores at all, we can pull them all down and install Parks instead!

-hps

Re:Great Idea (1)

RPGillespie (2478442) | about 3 years ago | (#37883008)

And we also need Google to install cameras at the manufacturing plants so we can see what the food inside the packaging looks like. That way, we are not surprised when we open our bag of chips to see that it is half air.

Re:Great Idea (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#37884396)

That way, we are not surprised when we open our bag of chips to see that it is half air.

What do you complain? Not only did they deliver chips to you, they even included free air. And everyone knows the importance of air. People have died from lack of it!

Re:Great Idea (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 3 years ago | (#37884748)

    Three words for you.. "arterial gas embolism". You may think you need a lot of air, but put it in the wrong place and you'll find yourself dead. Air is dangerous stuff. They should outlaw it, just like dihydrogen monoxide [dhmo.org] . Save the world, save yourselves, outlaw this dangerous stuff !

Remember Doritos 3D chips? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37888600)

Little balls of air. What a coup in selling practically nothing.

Re:Great Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37885472)

Next we just need a Grocery Store Map program

Tesco [apple.com] already has one.
I don't know how accurate it is, since it's rare for me to physically visit a grocery store.

Whatever you do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882872)

Don't look into the light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPgV6-gnQaE

Google Space (1)

RPGillespie (2478442) | about 3 years ago | (#37882948)

I heard that Google is developing a new program called Google Space. Basically, they are going to send thousands, nay, millions, of 360-degree HD photo capturing deep space probes away from the earth in all directions so that people can explore space from the comfort of their desks. I kid, of course.

Re:Google Space (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883090)

Wow, you're kidding? Really? I thought you were TOTALLY SERIOUS. /sarcasm

Next time try to be funny, CUNT.

disney world (1)

Twillerror (536681) | about 3 years ago | (#37883024)

I would have loved google maps while walking around there. Disney's app was pretty poor. GPS isn't super accurate, but enough to kind of let you know where you are in the park. Being able to "navigate" to space mountain would have been pretty cool. I'm sure Disney would give them access before or after the park opens. It also be cool if Google maps had Bluetooth or some other kind of wireless access so towers could give your phone even more accurate location.

Re:disney world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37886132)

I'm going to leave this right here
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.419053&lon=-81.580617&zoom=18&layers=M
and this right here
http://www.diy-streetview.org/

If you don't want to do the walking yourself, just send me the money to build one, I already have the season passes for the parks.

What "security questions"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883150)

"taking internal photos and posting them online brings up some security questions"

What "security questions", exactly? Do the businesses have an interest in preventing the world from knowing what its like to patronize them? Would they prefer to keep as much of the public as possible in the dark about what they have to offer?

What a stupid )(@*#@# statement.

As long as they do it when the store is EMPTY (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883216)

It would be way too creepy any other way.

Can we please update the laws for the 21st century? How about a legal right to not be exhibited without consent.

One day there will be Googleoids walking around with panoramic helmet cams if we don't protect non-notable individuals from exhibition.

eCommerce! (4, Interesting)

znerk (1162519) | about 3 years ago | (#37883280)

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.

"That we know are searched for most regularly" (1)

MattGWU (86623) | about 3 years ago | (#37883288)

That'll be useful next time I want to visit J.C. Penny! .....Bazinga.

The catch... (1)

Brooklynoid (656617) | about 3 years ago | (#37883502)

This seems like a great way for a [criminal|terrorist|other bad guy] to scope out a location without exposing them self to the risk of actually going to the location.

Re:The catch... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 years ago | (#37884934)

It does. And while Google says that the "photographs will capture nothing different to what a customer would see", with the pictures you certainly have more time to carefully look at the details and make more accurate plans. I'm not trying to crush a potentially useful idea, but there is some apparent security risks.

Re:The catch... (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about 3 years ago | (#37885650)

Paranoid bollocks.

1) Google does it if a business ASKS THEM TO. You're unlikely to get close ups of bank vaults or diamond trading firms.

2) They don't take photos where the owner tells them not to.

3) Bad guys can stick on a moustache, or pay someone to scope the place out -- with special attention to security features probably NOT shown by Googlecam. People wander around with a phone in their hand all the time, trivial to set it to take photos or video.

Re:The catch... (1)

smurfsurf (892933) | about 3 years ago | (#37886936)

Again? Google Earth, Google Streetview, every time the same doomsday scenarios... Run people, run!!1! Teh terrists are coming!!1!

Thank god that kind thinking was not prevalent in the past or we would not have electricity, cars or aircrafts.

Why are people so paranoid? (2)

pipedwho (1174327) | about 3 years ago | (#37883546)

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.

Re:Why are people so paranoid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884000)

No need to case a joint if google has done it for you already. Plan your retail thievery at home from your computer!

Re:Why are people so paranoid? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#37884378)

Next: Google Theft. You just cut&paste the money directly from Business View. :-)

What about post 9-11 paranoia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883556)

Google says its photographs will 'capture nothing different to what a customer would see by visiting the business in real life.'

So how's this line of reasoning working out for people taking photos of bridges, electrical substations, important buildings, etc.?

Google HomeView (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | about 3 years ago | (#37883768)

and on 12-mar-2010 people thought this [youtube.com] was a joke ...

Google Street View Indoors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883784)

Gigwalk already collects this data and pays people to take the pictures with their phones using MS Photosynth. I often suspected they might be selling this to Google. Since most stores consider even casual photography against their policy and forbid it, I don't see how this is going to work, not to mention concerns about terrorists scoping out a site. If I took out a camera and starting rotating around with it, managers would swarm me and ask me to leave. I'm surprised we haven't heard this happen on the news yet.

Will it blur (1)

Boawk (525582) | about 3 years ago | (#37883968)

the faces of those sitting on toilets in the restrooms?

Most important places to google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884352)

Strip clubs

Re:Most important places to google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884478)

And houses of ill repute (I know there's some overlap there). Google, please make sure to include pictures of the staff in that case.

Finally! (1)

TuringTest (533084) | about 3 years ago | (#37884804)

Google will find my lost keys!

Google Home View (1)

hypersql (954649) | about 3 years ago | (#37884916)

In 2010, the german magazine "Der Spiegel" predicted there will be "Google Home View" in their comedy section - there is even a video (in german) [spiegel.de] .

I wonder how far they'll get in malls (1)

Toddlerbob (705732) | about 3 years ago | (#37884936)

Most shopping malls I know prohibit any picture-taking inside, let alone something to be broadcast to the webiverse.

On the other hand, the last time I was actually inside a mall was before telephones had cameras, so maybe they've given that up in the meantime.

Re:I wonder how far they'll get in malls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37885024)

I would have thought that malls were the ideal places to try this out on - Google Maps ends at the entrance, many malls are labyrinthine and figuring out how to get to a particular store, especially in an area you don't visit often can be an advantage.

Re:I wonder how far they'll get in malls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37885570)

I'd imagine shopping malls will be eager to get on this. As soon as one mall gets good exposure for being the 1st on Google Indoor View, all the others will follow suit.

Who owns the copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37885296)

Google of course.

Change the layout of your store and you have destroyed some of Google's IP?

A 'former' KGB agent was seeing tear eyed (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 years ago | (#37885908)

Oh, how easy it is to spy on people, how hard it is to keep secrets nowadays. No KGB agent had such wealth of information upon their targets as the potential targets of today are providing themselves with all these social media sites and systems. One wonders what McCarthyism in USA (or Soviet repressions) would have looked like, given all these tools, all these ways to spy on people and all these ways to aggregate data with easy tools and powerful mechanisms to do it that exist today. Are we even starting to understand this just now, as more and more liberties erode and more and more authorities go above the law and put their hands all over the data?

Precrime is being developed by DHS [homelandse...wswire.com] , it will have more data than necessary to come and pre-prison you because they figure that in the future you just may do something they don't like.

Maybe it doesn't matter that you apartment layout can be viewed online, maybe it does.

"Panopticon" tag is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37887018)

Whoever tagged this "panopticon" probably has a half-baked understanding of Foucault from some social theory class they took on their CS major.

This isn't a kind of panopticon.

The panopticon is a kind of prison in which inmates are well-behaved because they don't know, at any moment, whether they are being observed or not.

Re:"Panopticon" tag is wrong (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 3 years ago | (#37889454)

The Panopticon was Bentham's idea, FWIW.

Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37888106)

They visited a gallery a while back where i was having a sculpture show and photgraphed it... Can't wait to see it on Google Street View :) Thats the kind of thing that would be awesome to have available, a walk thru of art galleries and museums all round the world. Dunno that hairstylists and corner stores would be quite as awesome, but still fascinating if you live on the other side of the world. Cairo's shops are mad - would be great to see stuff like that.

Hey, Google, it's "different from! (1)

unitron (5733) | about 3 years ago | (#37888730)

When things differ, they differ from one another.

There's no such thing as "different than" or "different to".

Ozzy Osborne is ready to sign up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37890200)

So he can find all of his bathrooms.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?