image description:
using the famous inside you three are two wolves template.
the headline says, “inside you there are two wolves”
the text on top of black wolf reads, “tell her the importance of libre software, and how I use services”, while on top of white wolf the text reads, “don’t reveal too much information. she might be a CIA glowie”
You must log in or register to comment.
“I’d like to talk to you about some cool software, but would you mind taking these illegal drugs with me first? You know, the whole fed thing.”
IIRC undercovers have, in the past, taken drugs to ‘fit in’ and keep their cover. The guidance to undercovers is probably ‘try to avoid it’ but the directive of ‘don’t get caught’ and ‘try not to die’ probably override that.
I saw a documentary where a guy started to use drugs to keep his cover, then got addicted and got pushed down an elevator shaft.
I watched one about penguins.
Did they snort heroin too?
I don’t think so, but there was a suspiciously white powder, like, everywhere.
I guess that explains why they’re always throwing up so much. Into their kids’ mouths, even. ODs here, there, everywhere, all the time.
What if you do it with weed though? Drug tests for stuff like cocaine and meth aren’t very reliable but testing positive for nonpsychoactive thc metabolites on every drug test for the next 4 months because you had to smoke a joint to “fit in” is going to have a good chance at threatening any government employee’s career. They normally let people go over that in a heartbeat no matter how valuable they are. I’m having a hard time believing that there would ever be any situation where the feds wouldn’t fire one of their own people over thc. Company policy usually trumps all other reasoning. Under the federal drug free workplace policy if you test positive you get fired. That’s the rule.
Them: “That’s a myth, actually, they can totally do drugs undercover.”
Me: “Do you want some free acid the CIA made or not?”
What’s a glowie
CIA agents glow in the dark.
Do you have to crack them in half and shake them a bit first before they start glowing?
No, they do that by themselves
it can’t hurt tho… well not you anyway
You can see them when you’re driving.
Ya just run them over, that’s what ya do.
Actual video of CIA agents experiencing low-light photonic emissions in the visual spectrum.
It’s even worse when you shine a black light on them
The term was coined by computer programmer Terry A. Davis, who allegedly believed that the CIA was stalking and harassing him. “Glowie” is often used in online forums to refer to government agents, especially undercover operatives who infiltrate online far-right spaces.
“Glow in the dark” and its derivative terms have been used to refer to various groups: newcomers that do not fit in with the culture of certain forums and are thus suspected to have bad intentions, journalists who report on extremist groups, tech companies that collect users’ personal data, and others.
Rest in peace Terry, you crazy diamond!
Thank you for actually answering my question 🙂
Ayy one of todays lucky ten thousand ^^ although thats more intended for very common knowledge i guess. https://xkcd.com/1053/
I had to look it up, so I thought I’d share the wealth.
Did Terry Davis really coin it? I’m too lazy to fact check right now, but I wonder what the story is there.
Afaik from my time on 4chan, the phrase came from undercover FBI agents on the platform being so obvious they “glow”.
There’s a bunch of citations on Wikipedia, maybe there’s an explanation in there?
Thank you, very cool!
This comment glows
Etymology
From glow + -ie. Originated by Terry Davis, who stated in a 2017 video that “CIA n####rs glow in the dark”, implying that they are conspicuous. The term “glowie” would become popular on the 4chan /pol/ board around 2019.at this point it’s basically a racist dog whistle…
it’s not a ‘racist dog whistle’ now, or at least that wasn’t my intention. it’s another word for three-letter agencies or sometimes even bigtech.
just because it’s not your intention doesn’t change where it comes from and with whom it’s typically popular…
My eyes sheds a little tear seeing Terryisms live on in the lingos of the tech savvies.
Inside of you there are two wolves.
But the total recommended number of wolves inside a human body is zero. And they shouldn’t be able to talk.
Go see a doctor.
Thanks for the alt text. You don’t have to write complete sentences, for example “white wolf:” is enough.
thank you for the suggestion.
She’s def a glowie
You have reached transcendence when you realize it’s a honey pot and you go anyway.
If your threat model involves evaluating whether someone is a glowie, ask your mental health care professional about symptoms of paranoia/schizophrenia.
Unless distrusting strangers is the only reason you’re not in jail for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In that case, how’s your connection speed to Lemmy via TOR (I’m actually curious!)?
…I think you’d want to use TOR for everything if you were actually deep into black hat stuff, or is that overkill?
Another question, how many of us have actually interacted with the CIA? Aren’t they going after like super naughty people? And Aaron Swartz, motherfucking murderers. (different feds though) RIP
Signed,
Glowie throwing you off the scent
TOR has a bunch of backdoors for three letter agencies. You’re better off not connecting to the Internet if that’s the threat model, and people do have to live with such threats in some parts of the world.
The devs promise no backdoorsies!
A reddit thread claims it’s open source & used by the government. I would definitely agree hardcore criminals shouldn’t touch some modern technology, but how’d you ascertain it’s backdoored?
It’s used by the government because the keys to the backdoors rest with the NSA. I don’t have the source for what I read right now, but TOR devs are known to work with the government. I believe a similar interaction exists between I2P devs and the government but perhaps not to the extent that TOR does. Note that the government has a vested interest in having backdoors to TOR since it is used more by cybercriminals (for what reasons I do not understand since they know just as well that TOR cannot be trusted).
Read recent research publications about the vulnerabilities of TOR and I2P and you’ll quickly realise how trivial it would be for the government. As with semi-decentralised designs, there are many ways to break such architectures and the government holds such capabilities.
I don’t have the source for what I read right now, but TOR devs are known to work with the government.
bro it was developed by them, for secure communication lmao.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(network)The core principle of Tor, onion routing, was developed in the mid-1990s by United States Naval Research Laboratory employees, mathematician Paul Syverson, and computer scientists Michael G. Reed and David Goldschlag, to protect American intelligence communications online
It was handed over to the foundation as an independent organisation. However, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have their stinky hands in the project, it’s just that it’s not public.
Just what services do you use that are of interest to three letter agencies? They really aren’t interested in tracking down furry-porn browsing habits through TOR and I2P
So every corporation on the planet is full of suspects for the crime of employing system admins then. Well, good luck to them
For me it’s more like:
- Tell other people about all these cool FOSS so people can enjoy them and ditch Big Tech stuff
- Don’t tell other people about all these cool FOSS because they might get too popular and Big Tech might notice and do whatever they can to remove competition by any means necessary.
The wolves inside of me are now kissing 😳
Which one is going to win?
the black one seems to be winning as I don’t want another one falling victim to proprietary disservices.
I read your meme and comment in Dale Gribbles voice.
