<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>GranneBlog &#187; movies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.granneman.com/tag/movies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.granneman.com</link>
	<description>Ramblings &#38; ephemera</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:31:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Coppola on changes in the movie industry</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/10/30/coppola-on-changes-in-the-movie-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/10/30/coppola-on-changes-in-the-movie-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:53:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech in changing society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=1522</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Bloomberg&#8217;s &#8220;Francis Ford Coppola Sees Cinema World Falling Apart: Interview&#8221; (12 October 2009): “The cinema as we know it is falling apart,” says Francis Ford Coppola. “It’s a period of incredible change,” says the director of “The Godfather” and “Apocalypse Now.” “We used to think of six, seven big film companies. Every one of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/78425154@N00"><img alt="" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/86/273458197_b18f117526_m.jpg" title="How to Marry a Millionaire" class="alignnone" width="240" height="180" /></a></p>
<p>From Bloomberg&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&#038;sid=ajbmamDBit14">Francis Ford Coppola Sees Cinema World Falling Apart: Interview</a>&#8221; (12 October 2009):</p>
<blockquote><p>“The cinema as we know it is falling apart,” says Francis Ford Coppola.</p>
<p>“It’s a period of incredible change,” says the director of “The Godfather” and “Apocalypse Now.” “We used to think of six, seven big film companies. Every one of them is under great stress now. Probably two or three will go out of business and the others will just make certain kind of films like ‘Harry Potter’ &#8212; basically trying to make ‘Star Wars’ over and over again, because it’s a business.”</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p>“Cinema is losing the public’s interest,” says Coppola, “because there is so much it has to compete with to get people’s time.”</p>
<p>The profusion of leisure activities; the availability of movies on copied DVD and on the Internet; and news becoming entertainment are reshaping the industry, he says. Companies have combined businesses as customers turn to cheap downloads rather than visit shops or movie theaters.</p>
<p>“I think the cinema is going to live off into something more related to a live performance in which the filmmaker is there, like the conductor of an opera used to be,” Coppola says. “Cinema can be interactive, every night it can be a little different.”</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/10/30/coppola-on-changes-in-the-movie-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Various confidence scams, tricks, &amp; frauds</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/07/05/various-confidence-scams-tricks-frauds/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/07/05/various-confidence-scams-tricks-frauds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clever]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clothes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tricks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tricky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=1456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From &#8220;List of confidence tricks&#8221; (Wikipedia: 3 July 2009): Get-rich-quick schemes Get-rich-quick schemes are extremely varied. For example, fake franchises, real estate &#8220;sure things&#8221;, get-rich-quick books, wealth-building seminars, self-help gurus, sure-fire inventions, useless products, chain letters, fortune tellers, quack doctors, miracle pharmaceuticals, Nigerian money scams, charms and talismans are all used to separate the mark [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From &#8220;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks">List of confidence tricks</a>&#8221; (Wikipedia: 3 July 2009):</p>
<blockquote><h3>Get-rich-quick schemes</h3>
<p><strong>Get-rich-quick schemes</strong> are extremely varied. For example, fake franchises, real estate &#8220;sure things&#8221;, get-rich-quick books, wealth-building seminars, self-help gurus, sure-fire inventions, useless products, chain letters, fortune tellers, quack doctors, miracle pharmaceuticals, Nigerian money scams, charms and talismans are all used to separate the mark from his money. Variations include the pyramid scheme, Ponzi scheme and Matrix sale.</p>
<p>Count Victor Lustig sold the &#8220;money-printing machine&#8221; which could copy $100 bills. The client, sensing huge profits, would buy the machines for a high price (usually over $30,000). Over the next twelve hours, the machine would produce just two more $100 bills, but after that it produced only blank paper, as its supply of hidden $100 bills would have become exhausted. This type of scheme is also called the &#8220;money box&#8221; scheme.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p><strong>The wire game</strong>, as depicted in the movie <em>The Sting</em>, trades on the promise of insider knowledge to beat a gamble, stock trade or other monetary action. In the wire game, a &#8220;mob&#8221; composed of dozens of grifters simulates a &#8220;wire store&#8221;, i.e., a place where results from horse races are received by telegram and posted on a large board, while also being read aloud by an announcer. The griftee is given secret foreknowledge of the race results minutes before the race is broadcast, and is therefore able to place a sure bet at the wire store. In reality, of course, the con artists who set up the wire store are the providers of the inside information, and the mark eventually is led to place a large bet, thinking it to be a sure win. At this point, some mistake is made, which actually makes the bet a loss. &hellip;</p>
<p><strong>Salting</strong> or <strong>to salt the mine</strong> are terms for a scam in which gems or gold ore are planted in a mine or on the landscape, duping the greedy mark into purchasing shares in a worthless or non-existent mining company.[2] During the Gold Rush, scammers would load shotguns with gold dust and shoot into the sides of the mine to give the appearance of a rich ore, thus &#8220;salting the mine&#8221;. &hellip;</p>
<p>The <strong>Spanish Prisoner</strong> scam – and its modern variant, the <strong>advance fee fraud</strong> or <strong>Nigerian scam</strong> – take advantage of the victim’s greed. The basic premise involves enlisting the mark to aid in retrieving some stolen money from its hiding place. The victim sometimes believes he can cheat the con artists out of their money, but anyone trying this has already fallen for the essential con by believing that the money is there to steal (see also Black money scam). &hellip;</p>
<p>Many conmen employ extra tricks to keep the victim from going to the police. A common ploy of investment scammers is to encourage a mark to use money concealed from tax authorities. The mark cannot go to the authorities without revealing that he or she has committed tax fraud. Many swindles involve a minor element of crime or some other misdeed. The mark is made to think that he or she will gain money by helping fraudsters get huge sums out of a country (the classic Nigerian scam); hence marks cannot go to the police without revealing that they planned to commit a crime themselves.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<h3>Gold brick scams</h3>
<p>Gold brick scams involve selling a tangible item for more than it is worth; named after selling the victim an allegedly golden ingot which turns out to be gold-coated lead.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p><strong>Pig-in-a-poke</strong> originated in the late Middle Ages. The con entails a sale of a (suckling) &#8220;pig&#8221; in a &#8220;poke&#8221; (bag). The bag ostensibly contains a live healthy little pig, but actually contains a cat (not particularly prized as a source of meat, and at any rate, quite unlikely to grow to be a large hog). If one buys a &#8220;pig in a poke&#8221; without looking in the bag (a colloquial expression in the English language, meaning &#8220;to be a sucker&#8221;), the person has bought something of less value than was assumed, and has learned firsthand the lesson caveat emptor.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p>The <strong>Thai gem scam</strong> involves layers of con men and helpers who tell a tourist in Bangkok of an opportunity to earn money by buying duty-free jewelry and having it shipped back to the tourist&#8217;s home country. The mark is driven around the city in a tuk-tuk operated by one of the con men, who ensures that the mark meets one helper after another, until the mark is persuaded to buy the jewelry from a store also operated by the swindlers. The gems are real but significantly overpriced. This scam has been operating for 20 years in Bangkok, and is said to be protected by Thai police and politicians. A similar scam usually runs in parallel for custom-made suits.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<h3>Extortion or false-injury tricks</h3>
<p>The <strong>badger game</strong> extortion is often perpetrated on married men. The mark is deliberately coerced into a compromising position, a supposed affair for example, then threatened with public exposure of his acts unless blackmail money is paid.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p><strong>The Melon Drop</strong> is a scam in which the scammer will intentionally bump into the mark and drop a package containing (already broken) glass. He will blame the damage on the clumsiness of the mark, and demand money in compensation. This con arose when artists discovered that the Japanese paid large sums of money for watermelons. The scammer would go to a supermarket to buy a cheap watermelon, then bump into a Japanese tourist and set a high price.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<h3>Gambling tricks</h3>
<p><strong>Three-card Monte</strong>, &#8216;Find The Queen&#8217;, the &#8220;Three-card Trick&#8221;, or &#8220;Follow The Lady&#8221;, is (except for the props) essentially the same as the probably centuries-older <strong>shell game</strong> or <em>thimblerig</em>. The trickster shows three playing cards to the audience, one of which is a queen (the &#8220;lady&#8221;), then places the cards face-down, shuffles them around and invites the audience to bet on which one is the queen. At first the audience is skeptical, so the shill places a bet and the scammer allows him to win. In one variation of the game, the shill will (apparently surreptitiously) peek at the lady, ensuring that the mark also sees the card. This is sometimes enough to entice the audience to place bets, but the trickster uses sleight of hand to ensure that they always lose, unless the conman decides to let them win, hoping to lure them into betting much more. The mark loses whenever the dealer chooses to make him lose. This con appears in the Eric Garcia novel <em>Matchstick Men</em> and is featured in the movie <em>Edmond</em>.</p>
<p>A variation on this scam exists in Barcelona, Spain, but with the addition of a pickpocket. The dealer and shill behave in an overtly obvious manner, attracting a larger audience. When the pickpocket succeeds in stealing from a member of the audience, he signals the dealer. The dealer then shouts the word &#8220;aqua&#8221;, and the three split up. The audience is left believing that &#8220;aqua&#8221; is a code word indicating the police are coming, and that the performance was a failed scam.</p>
<p>In the <strong>Football Picks Scam</strong> the scammer sends out tip sheet stating a game will go one way to 100 potential victims and the other way to another 100. The next week, the 100 or so who received the correct answer are divided into two groups and fed another pick. This is repeated until a small population have (apparently) received a series of supernaturally perfect picks, then the final pick is offered for sale. Despite being well-known (it was even described completely on an episode of The Simpsons and used by Derren Brown in &#8220;The System&#8221;), this scam is run almost continuously in different forms by different operators. The sports picks can also be replaced with securities, or any other random process, in an alternative form. This scam has also been called the <strong>inverted pyramid</strong> scheme, because of the steadily decreasing population of victims at each stage.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p>Visitors to Las Vegas or other gambling towns often encounter the <strong>Barred Winner</strong> scam, a form of advance fee fraud performed in person. The artist will approach his mark outside a casino with a stack or bag of high-value casino chips and say that he just won big, but the casino accused him of cheating and threw him out without letting him redeem the chips. The artist asks the mark to go in and cash the chips for him. The artist will often offer a percentage of the winnings to the mark for his trouble. But, when the mark agrees, the artist feigns suspicion and asks the mark to put up something of value &#8220;for insurance&#8221;. The mark agrees, hands over jewelry, a credit card or their wallet, then goes in to cash the chips. When the mark arrives at the cashier, they are informed the chips are fake. The artist, by this time, is long gone with the mark&#8217;s valuables.</p>
<h3>False reward tricks</h3>
<p>The <strong>glim-dropper</strong> requires several accomplices, one of whom must be a one-eyed man. One grifter goes into a store and pretends he has lost his glass eye. Everyone looks around, but the eye cannot be found. He declares that he will pay a thousand-dollar reward for the return of his eye, leaving contact information. The next day, an accomplice enters the store and pretends to find the eye. The storekeeper (the intended griftee), thinking of the reward, offers to take it and return it to its owner. The finder insists he will return it himself, and demands the owner’s address. Thinking he will lose all chance of the reward, the storekeeper offers a hundred dollars for the eye. The finder bargains him up to $250, and departs.&hellip;</p>
<p>The <strong>fiddle game</strong> uses the pigeon drop technique. A pair of con men work together, one going into an expensive restaurant in shabby clothes, eating, and claiming to have left his wallet at home, which is nearby. As collateral, the con man leaves his only worldly possession, the violin that provides his livelihood. After he leaves, the second con man swoops in, offers an outrageously large amount (for example $50,000) for such a rare instrument, then looks at his watch and runs off to an appointment, leaving his card for the mark to call him when the fiddle-owner returns. The mark&#8217;s greed comes into play when the &#8220;poor man&#8221; comes back, having gotten the money to pay for his meal and redeem his violin. The mark, thinking he has an offer on the table, then buys the violin from the fiddle player (who &#8220;reluctantly&#8221; sells it eventually for, say, $5,000). The result is the two conmen are $5,000 richer (less the cost of the violin), and the mark is left with a cheap instrument.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<h3>Other confidence tricks and techniques</h3>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p><strong>The Landlord Scam</strong> advertises an apartment for rent at an attractive price. The con artist, usually someone who is house-sitting or has a short-term sublet at the unit, takes a deposit and first/last month&#8217;s rent from every person who views the suite. When move-in day arrives, the con artist is of course gone, and the apartment belongs to none of the angry people carrying boxes.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p><strong>Change raising</strong> is a common short con and involves an offer to change an amount of money with someone, while at the same time taking change or bills back and forth to confuse the person as to how much money is actually being changed. The most common form, &#8220;the Short Count&#8221;, has been featured prominently in several movies about grifting, notably Nueve Reinas, The Grifters and Paper Moon. A con artist shopping at, say a gas station, is given 80 cents in change because he lacks two dimes to complete the sale (say the sale cost is $19.20 and the con man has a 20 dollar bill). He goes out to his car and returns a short time later, with 20 cents. He returns them, saying that he found the rest of the change to make a dollar, and asking for a bill so he will not have to carry coins. The confused store clerk agrees, exchanging a dollar for the 20 cents the conman returned. In essence, the mark makes change twice.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p><strong>Beijing tea scam</strong> is a famous scam in and around Beijing. The artists (usually female and working in pairs) will approach tourists and try to make friends. After chatting, they will suggest a trip to see a tea ceremony, claiming that they have never been to one before. The tourist is never shown a menu, but assumes that this is how things are done in China. After the ceremony, the bill is presented to the tourist, charging upwards of $100 per head. The artists will then hand over their bills, and the tourists are obliged to follow suit.
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/07/05/various-confidence-scams-tricks-frauds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Foster Wallace on David Lynch</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/04/18/david-foster-wallace-on-david-lynch/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/04/18/david-foster-wallace-on-david-lynch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 04:52:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language & literature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weird]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david_foster_wallace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[definition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=1279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From David Foster Wallace&#8217;s &#8220;David Lynch Keeps His Head&#8221; (Premier: September 1996): AN ACADEMIC DEFINITION of Lynchian might be that the term &#8220;refers to a particular kind of irony where the very macabre and the very mundane combine in such a way as to reveal the former&#8217;s perpetual containment within the latter.&#8221; But like postmodern [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From David Foster Wallace&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="http://www.lynchnet.com/lh/lhpremiere.html">David Lynch Keeps His Head</a>&#8221; (<em>Premier</em>: September 1996):</p>
<blockquote><p>AN ACADEMIC DEFINITION of Lynchian might be that the term &#8220;refers to a particular kind of irony where the very macabre and the very mundane combine in such a way as to reveal the former&#8217;s perpetual containment within the latter.&#8221; But like postmodern or pornographic, Lynchian is one of those Porter Stewart-type words that&#8217;s ultimately definable only ostensively &#8211; i.e., we know it when we see it. Ted Bundy wasn&#8217;t particularly Lynchian, but good old Jeffrey Dahmer, with his victims&#8217; various anatomies neatly separated and stored in his fridge alongside his chocolate milk and Shedd Spread, was thoroughgoingly Lynchian. A recent homicide in Boston, in which the deacon of a South Shore church reportedly gave chase to a vehicle that bad cut him off, forced the car off the road, and shot the driver with a highpowered crossbow, was borderline Lynchian. A Rotary luncheon where everybody&#8217;s got a comb-over and a polyester sport coat and is eating bland Rotarian chicken and exchanging Republican platitudes with heartfelt sincerity and yet all are either amputees or neurologically damaged or both would be more Lynchian than not.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/04/18/david-foster-wallace-on-david-lynch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What passwords do people use? phpBB examples</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/03/10/what-passwords-do-people-use-phpbb-examples/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/03/10/what-passwords-do-people-use-phpbb-examples/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:34:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[language & literature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[list]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[passwords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tv]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=1218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Robert Graham&#8217;s &#8220;PHPBB Password Analysis&#8221; (Dark Reading: 6 February 2009): A popular Website, phpbb.com, was recently hacked. The hacker published approximately 20,000 user passwords from the site. &#8230; This incident is similar to one two years ago when MySpace was hacked, revealing about 30,000 passwords. &#8230; The striking different between the two incidents is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Robert Graham&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="http://www.darkreading.com/blog/archives/2009/02/phpbb_password.html">PHPBB Password Analysis</a>&#8221; (Dark Reading: 6 February 2009):</p>
<blockquote><p>A popular Website, phpbb.com, was recently hacked. The hacker published approximately 20,000 user passwords from the site. &#8230;</p>
<p>This incident is similar to one two years ago when MySpace was hacked, revealing about 30,000 passwords. &#8230;</p>
<p>The striking different between the two incidents is that the phpbb passwords are simpler. MySpace requires that passwords &#8220;must be between 6 and 10 characters, and contain at least 1 number or punctuation character.&#8221; Most people satisfied this requirement by simply appending &#8220;1&#8243; to the ends of their passwords. The phpbb site has no such restrictions &#8212; the passwords are shorter and rarely contain anything more than a dictionary word.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s hard to judge exactly how many passwords are dictionary words. &#8230; I ran the phpbb passwords through various dictionary files and come up with a 65% match (for a simple English dictionary) and 94% (for &#8220;hacker&#8221; dictionaries). &#8230;</p>
<p>16% of passwords matched a person&#8217;s first name. This includes people choosing their own first names or those of their spouses or children. The most popular first names were Joshua, Thomas, Michael, and Charlie. But I wonder if there is something else going on. Joshua, for example, was also the password to the computer in &#8220;Wargames&#8221; &#8230;</p>
<p>14% of passwords were patterns on the keyboard, like &#8220;1234,&#8221; &#8220;qwerty,&#8221; or &#8220;asdf.&#8221; There are a lot of different patterns people choose, like &#8220;1qaz2wsx&#8221; or &#8220;1q2w3e.&#8221; I spent a while googling &#8220;159357,&#8221; trying to figure out how to categorize it, then realized it was a pattern on the numeric keypad. &#8230;</p>
<p>4% are variations of the word &#8220;password,&#8221; such as &#8220;passw0rd,&#8221; &#8220;password1,&#8221; or &#8220;passwd.&#8221; I googled &#8220;drowssap,&#8221; trying to figure out how to categorize it, until I realized it was &#8220;password&#8221; spelled backward.</p>
<p>5% of passwords are pop-culture references from TV, movies, and music. These tend to be youth culture (&#8220;hannah,&#8221; &#8220;pokemon,&#8221; &#8220;tigger&#8221;) and geeky (&#8220;klingon,&#8221; &#8220;starwars,&#8221; &#8220;matrix,&#8221; &#8220;legolas,&#8221; &#8220;ironman&#8221;). &#8230; Some notable pop-culture references are chosen not because they are popular, but because they sound like passwords, such as &#8220;ou812&#8243; (&#8217;80s Van Halen album), &#8220;blink182&#8243; (&#8217;90s pop), &#8220;rush2112&#8243; (&#8217;80s album), and &#8220;8675309&#8243; (&#8217;80s pop song).</p>
<p>4% of passwords appear to reference things nearby. The name &#8220;samsung&#8221; is a popular password, I think because it&#8217;s the brand name on the monitor that people are looking at &#8230; Similarly, there are a lot of names of home computers like &#8220;dell,&#8221; &#8220;packard,&#8221; &#8220;apple,&#8221; &#8220;pavilion,&#8221; &#8220;presario,&#8221; &#8220;compaq,&#8221; and so on. &#8230;</p>
<p>3% of passwords are &#8220;emo&#8221; words. Swear words, especially the F-word, are common, but so are various forms of love and hate (like &#8220;iloveyou&#8221; or &#8220;ihateyou&#8221;).</p>
<p>3% are &#8220;don&#8217;t care&#8221; words. &#8230; A lot of password choices reflect this attitude, either implicitly with &#8220;abc123&#8243; or &#8220;blahblah,&#8221; or explicitly with &#8220;whatever,&#8221; &#8220;whocares,&#8221; or &#8220;nothing.&#8221;</p>
<p>1.3% are passwords people saw in movies/TV. This is a small category, consisting only of &#8220;letmein,&#8221; &#8220;trustno1,&#8221; &#8220;joshua,&#8221; and &#8220;monkey,&#8221; but it accounts for a large percentage of passwords.</p>
<p>1% are sports related. &#8230;</p>
<p>Here is the top 20 passwords from the phpbb dataset. You&#8217;ll find nothing surprising here; all of them are on this Top 500 list.</p>
<p>      3.03% &#8220;123456&#8243;<br />
      2.13% &#8220;password&#8221;<br />
      1.45% &#8220;phpbb&#8221;<br />
      0.91% &#8220;qwerty&#8221;<br />
      0.82% &#8220;12345&#8243;<br />
      0.59% &#8220;12345678&#8243;<br />
      0.58% &#8220;letmein&#8221;<br />
      0.53% &#8220;1234&#8243;<br />
      0.50% &#8220;test&#8221;<br />
      0.43% &#8220;123&#8243;<br />
      0.36% &#8220;trustno1&#8243;<br />
      0.33% &#8220;dragon&#8221;<br />
      0.31% &#8220;abc123&#8243;<br />
      0.31% &#8220;123456789&#8243;<br />
      0.31% &#8220;111111&#8243;<br />
      0.30% &#8220;hello&#8221;<br />
      0.30% &#8220;monkey&#8221;<br />
      0.28% &#8220;master&#8221;<br />
      0.22% &#8220;killer&#8221;<br />
      0.22% &#8220;123123&#8243;</p>
<p>Notice that whereas &#8220;myspace1&#8243; was one of the most popular passwords in the MySpace dataset, &#8220;phpbb&#8221; is one of the most popular passwords in the phpbb dataset.</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>The password length distribution is as follows:</p>
<p>      1 character 0.34%<br />
      2 characters 0.54%<br />
      3 characters 2.92%<br />
      4 characters 12.29%<br />
      5 characters 13.29%<br />
      6 characters 35.16%<br />
      7 characters 14.60%<br />
      8 characters 15.50%<br />
      9 characters 3.81%<br />
      10 characters 1.14%<br />
      11 characters 0.22%</p>
<p>Note that phpbb has no requirements for password lengths &#8230;</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/03/10/what-passwords-do-people-use-phpbb-examples/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What happens to IP when it&#8217;s easy to copy anything?</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/02/12/what-happens-to-ip-when-its-easy-to-copy-anything/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/02/12/what-happens-to-ip-when-its-easy-to-copy-anything/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:09:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech in changing society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual_property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open_source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=1185</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Bruce Sterling&#8217;s &#8220;2009 Will Be a Year of Panic&#8221; (Seed: 29 January 2009): Let&#8217;s consider seven other massive reservoirs of potential popular dread. Any one of these could erupt, shattering the fragile social compact we maintain with one another in order to believe things contrary to fact. &#8230; 2. Intellectual property. More specifically, the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Bruce Sterling&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="http://seedmagazine.com/news/2009/01/2009_will_be_a_year_of_panic.php">2009 Will Be a Year of Panic</a>&#8221; (Seed: 29 January 2009):</p>
<blockquote><p>Let&#8217;s consider seven other massive reservoirs of potential popular dread. Any one of these could erupt, shattering the fragile social compact we maintain with one another in order to believe things contrary to fact.</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>2. Intellectual property. More specifically, the fiat declaration that properties that are easy to reproduce shouldn&#8217;t be reproduced.</p>
<p>Declaring that &#8220;information wants to be free&#8221; is an ideological stance. A real-world situation where information can&#8217;t be anything but free, where digital information cannot be monetized, is bizarre and deeply scary. No banker or economist anywhere has the ghost of clue what to do under such conditions.</p>
<p>Intellectual property made sense and used to work rather well when conditions of production favored it. Now they don&#8217;t. If it&#8217;s simple to copy just one single movie, some gray area of fair use can be tolerated. If it becomes easy to copy a million movies with one single button-push, this vast economic superstructure is reduced to rags. Our belief in this kind of &#8220;property&#8221; becomes absurd.</p>
<p>To imagine that real estate is worthless is strange, though we&#8217;ve somehow managed to do that. But our society is also built on the supposed monetary worth of unreal estate. In fact, the planet&#8217;s most advanced economies are optimized to create pretty much nothing else. The ultimate global consequences of this situation&#8217;s abject failure would rank with the collapse of Communism.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/02/12/what-happens-to-ip-when-its-easy-to-copy-anything/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real-life superheroes</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/01/04/real-life-superheroes/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/01/04/real-life-superheroes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:28:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[weird]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[superhero]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=1103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From John Harlow&#8217;s &#8220;Amateur crimefighters are surging in the US&#8221; (The Times: 28 December 2008): There are, according to the recently launched World Superhero Registry, more than 200 men and a few women who are willing to dress up as comic book heroes and patrol the urban streets in search of, if not super-villains, then [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From John Harlow&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5404186.ece">Amateur crimefighters are surging in the US</a>&#8221; (<em>The Times</em>: 28 December 2008):</p>
<blockquote><p>There are, according to the recently launched World Superhero Registry, more than 200 men and a few women who are willing to dress up as comic book heroes and patrol the urban streets in search of, if not super-villains, then pickpockets and bullies.</p>
<p>They may look wacky, but the superhero community was born in the embers of the 9/11 terrorist attacks when ordinary people wanted to do something short of enlisting. They were boosted by a glut of Hollywood superhero movies.</p>
<p>In recent weeks, prompted by heady buzz words such as “active citizenry” during the Barack Obama campaign, the pace of enrolment has speeded up. Up to 20 new “Reals”, as they call themselves, have materialised in the past month.</p>
<p>The Real rules are simple. They must stand for unambiguous and unsponsored good. They must create their own Spandex and rubber costumes without infringing Marvel or DC Comics copyrights, but match them with exotic names – Green Scorpion in Arizona, Terrifica in New York, Mr Xtreme in San Diego and Mr Silent in Indianapolis.</p>
<p>They must shun guns or knives to avoid being arrested as vigilantes, even if their nemeses may be armed. Their best weapon is not muscle but the internet – an essential tool in their war on crime is a homepage stating the message of doom for super-villains.</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>[Citizen] Prime patrols some of the most dangerous streets in Phoenix but, like most Reals, is reluctant to speak about the villains he has dispatched with a blow from his martial arts-honed forearm. He does admit helping a motorist change a flat tyre.
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2009/01/04/real-life-superheroes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bruce Schneier on security &amp; crime economics</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/12/17/bruce-schneier-on-security-crime-economics/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/12/17/bruce-schneier-on-security-crime-economics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:25:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bruce_schneier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=1085</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Stephen J. Dubner&#8217;s interview with Bruce Schneier in &#8220;Bruce Schneier Blazes Through Your Questions&#8221; (The New York Times: 4 December 2007): Basically, you’re asking if crime pays. Most of the time, it doesn’t, and the problem is the different risk characteristics. If I make a computer security mistake — in a book, for a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Stephen J. Dubner&#8217;s interview with Bruce Schneier in &#8220;<a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/bruce-schneier-blazes-through-your-questions/">Bruce Schneier Blazes Through Your Questions</a>&#8221; (<em>The New York Times</em>: 4 December 2007):</p>
<blockquote><p>Basically, you’re asking if crime pays. Most of the time, it doesn’t, and the problem is the different risk characteristics. If I make a computer security mistake — in a book, for a consulting client, at BT — it’s a mistake. It might be expensive, but I learn from it and move on. As a criminal, a mistake likely means jail time — time I can’t spend earning my criminal living. For this reason, it’s hard to improve as a criminal. And this is why there are more criminal masterminds in the movies than in real life.</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>Crime has been part of our society since our species invented society, and it’s not going away anytime soon. The real question is, “Why is there so much crime and hacking on the Internet, and why isn’t anyone doing anything about it?”</p>
<p>The answer is in the economics of Internet vulnerabilities and attacks: the organizations that are in the position to mitigate the risks aren’t responsible for the risks. This is an externality, and if you want to fix the problem you need to address it. In this essay (more here), I recommend liabilities; companies need to be liable for the effects of their software flaws. A related problem is that the Internet security market is a lemon’s market (discussed here), but there are strategies for dealing with that, too. </p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/12/17/bruce-schneier-on-security-crime-economics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Steve Jobs has changed 4 industries</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/11/23/steve-jobs-has-changed-4-industries/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/11/23/steve-jobs-has-changed-4-industries/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:53:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=971</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Tom Junod&#8217;s &#8220;Steve Jobs and the Portal to the Invisible&#8221; (Esquire: 29 September 2008): &#8230; Jobs has changed three industries forever &#8212; personal computing with the Apple II, music with the iPod and iTunes, and movies with Pixar &#8212; and is on the verge of changing a fourth with the iPhone &#8230;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Tom Junod&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="http://www.esquire.com/features/75-most-influential/steve-jobs-1008">Steve Jobs and the Portal to the Invisible</a>&#8221; (<em>Esquire</em>: 29 September 2008):</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230; Jobs has changed three industries forever &#8212; personal computing with the Apple II, music with the iPod and iTunes, and movies with Pixar &#8212; and is on the verge of changing a fourth with the iPhone &#8230;</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/11/23/steve-jobs-has-changed-4-industries/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How movies are moved around on botnets</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/11/22/how-movies-are-moved-around-on-botnets/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/11/22/how-movies-are-moved-around-on-botnets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:31:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech in changing society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sharing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Chapter 2: Botnets Overview of Craig A. Schiller&#8217;s Botnets: The Killer Web App (Syngress: 2007): Figure 2.11 illustrates the use of botnets for selling stolen intellectual property, in this case Movies, TV shows, or video. The diagram is based on information from the Pyramid of Internet Piracy created by Motion Picture Arts Association (MPAA) [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Chapter 2: Botnets Overview of Craig A. Schiller&#8217;s <em>Botnets: The Killer Web App</em> (Syngress: 2007):</p>
<blockquote><p>
Figure 2.11 illustrates the use of botnets for selling stolen intellectual property, in this case Movies, TV shows, or video. The diagram is based on information from the Pyramid of Internet Piracy created by Motion Picture Arts Association (MPAA) and an actual case. To start the process, a supplier rips a movie or software from an existing DVD or uses a camcorder to record a ﬁrst run movie in the theaters. These are either burnt to DVDs to be sold on the black market or they are sold or provided to a Release Group. The Release Group is likely to be an organized crime group, excuse me, business associates who wish to invest in the entertainment industry. I am speculating that the Release Group engages (hires) a botnet operator that can meet their delivery and performance speciﬁcations. The botherder then commands the botnet clients to retrieve the media from the supplier and store it in a participating botnet client. These botnet clients may be qualiﬁed according to the system processor speed and the nature of the Internet connection. The huge Internet pipe, fast connection, and lax security at most universities make them a prime target for this form of botnet application. MPAA calls these clusters of high speed locations &#8220;Topsites.&#8221;</p>
<p>. . . </p>
<p>According to the MPAA, 44 percent of all movie piracy is attributed to college students. Therefore it makes sense that the Release Groups would try to use university botnet clients as Topsites. The next groups in the chain are called Facilitators. They operate Web sites and search engines and act as Internet directories. These may be Web sites for which you pay a monthly fee or a fee per download. Finally individuals download the ﬁlms for their own use or they list them via Peer-to-Peer sharing applications like Gnutella, BitTorrent for download.
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/11/22/how-movies-are-moved-around-on-botnets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anonymity and Netflix</title>
		<link>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/11/21/anonymity-and-netflix/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/11/21/anonymity-and-netflix/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:44:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Granneman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech in changing society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bruce_schneier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surveillance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.granneman.com/?p=898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Bruce Schneier&#8217;s &#8220;Anonymity and the Netflix Dataset&#8221; (Crypto-Gram: 15 January 2008): The point of the research was to demonstrate how little information is required to de-anonymize information in the Netflix dataset. &#8230; What the University of Texas researchers demonstrate is that this process isn&#8217;t hard, and doesn&#8217;t require a lot of data. It turns [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Bruce Schneier&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0801.html#1">Anonymity and the Netflix Dataset</a>&#8221; (Crypto-Gram: 15 January 2008):</p>
<blockquote><p>The point of the research was to demonstrate how little information is required to de-anonymize information in the Netflix dataset. </p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>What the University of Texas researchers demonstrate is that this process isn&#8217;t hard, and doesn&#8217;t require a lot of data. It turns out that if you eliminate the top 100 movies everyone watches, our movie-watching habits are all pretty individual. This would certainly hold true for our book reading habits, our internet shopping habits, our telephone habits and our web searching habits.  </p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>Other research reaches the same conclusion. Using public anonymous data from the 1990 census, Latanya Sweeney found that 87 percent of the population in the United States, 216 million of 248 million, could likely be uniquely identified by their five-digit ZIP code, combined with their gender and date of birth. About half of the U.S. population is likely identifiable by gender, date of birth and the city, town or municipality in which the person resides. Expanding the geographic scope to an entire county reduces that to a still-significant 18 percent. &#8220;In general,&#8221; the researchers wrote, &#8220;few characteristics are needed to uniquely identify a person.&#8221;</p>
<p>Stanford University researchers reported similar results using 2000 census data. It turns out that date of birth, which (unlike birthday month and day alone) sorts people into thousands of different buckets, is incredibly valuable in disambiguating people. </p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.granneman.com/2008/11/21/anonymity-and-netflix/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
