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”

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    10 months ago

    “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.”

    • sethboy66@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      10 months ago

      Wikipedia sez

      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.

    • xor@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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…

      • lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • xor@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          just because it’s not your intention doesn’t change where it comes from and with whom it’s typically popular…

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    You have reached transcendence when you realize it’s a honey pot and you go anyway.

  • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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

    • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        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?

        • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • ff00ff@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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

            • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

  • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    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

  • u_u@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.