US Fears Loss of ICQ Honeypot

AHuxley writes "US law enforcement bodies view the sale of instant messaging service ICQ to a Russian company as a threat to homeland security. In spring 2010, Russia's largest Internet investment company, Digital Sky Technologies, agreed to purchase the service for $187 million from AOL. The US is sure that most criminals use ICQ and, therefore, constant access to the ICQ servers is needed to track them down. As the system is based in Israel, American security service have had access. The article concludes, 'Lawyers [of unspecified nationality] say that to block the deal the US Committee on Foreign Investment needed to cancel it no later than within 30 days after the deal has been announced — so unless the rules are broken, nothing can be changed.'"

Comments

National Security Act

[Brett Buck]

Nothing can be done?! Nonsense. The National Security Act could be used to simply seize the entire operation, if it's that important.

Re:National Security Act

[DigiShaman]

If it's "perfectly legal", than I'm quite disturbed. I mean, screw what the Russians think. I'm more afraid of my own government. I'm sure they feel the same way about us.

I'm all about protecting national security, but not to the level where it becomes more (if at all) authoritarian.

Re:National Security Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has that stopped them?

Re:National Security Act

[King InuYasha]

The American government could "advise" the Israeli government to do this, yes. The Israeli government has no qualms about doing stuff like that, because as a state in perpetual war with itself, it has certain abilities that its government framework gives them that they wouldn't have if they weren't in a state of war. Which includes seizing property.

Re:National Security Act

[unity]

"limited government" you say? That notion died in 1913 and it ain't ever coming back without a full-on revolution.

Re:National Security Act

[Wyatt Earp]

Israel isn't at war with itself.

Israel is at war with terrorist groups trying to destroy it (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc) and nation-states it's in conflict with (Syria and Iran).

Re:National Security Act

[camperdave]

Perfectly legal for the US to intervene in a sale from an Israeli company to a Russian one? If that's truly the case, the US has far, far too much power.

Re:National Security Act

[King InuYasha]

What about the Arabs that live in the area that Israel was carved out of? And what about what is left of Palestine?

Making a Jewish state was not a good idea. In general, founding countries using religion always leads to insanity like this...

Re:National Security Act

[Trepidity]

I agree, but I'd say the same of, say, Turkey. Only they were a bit more genocidal about "solving" their Greek and Armenian problem, so, perversely, they don't get as much shit about it anymore--- Israel was much nicer to its domestic minorities, so gets more shit about it.

Re:National Security Act

[Tastecicles]

Granted, but where does this come in to unlawful interference in extranational commerce?

Re:National Security Act

[phoenix321]

Yes, and they battled for decades over the topic eminent domain and continue to do so every time it is invoked.

Seizing private property for public use is probably unavoidable sometimes, but generally allowing it on a day-to-day basis is equal to real, old-school, hard-core Communism or Fascism.

And no, that's no slippery slope argument: The State removing private property from its rightful owner to give it to The People is what Communism is all about.

Compensation paid is the only thing that makes this oppressive move halfway acceptable in some cases where it is unavoidable, or airports or highways could not be build, nowhere, never. The discussions will not end there, since the amount of compensation that is deemed fair is usually wildly differing between the owner and the state trying to seize it. I'm glad I don't have to decide what amount of fair compensation is added to a seized real-estate for "owner was born there" or "owners family lived there for ten generations", and I highly doubt anyone can put a number on that.

Think about it: Private property free to nationalize at the whim of whoever currently has executive authority. It can hardly get anymore Communist than that at all. Short of wife sharing and forced meals in the communal mess hall, this is the real deal, live and in true color 3d.

Evicting people from their homes to build a much-needed airport is one thing. Seizing property in other countries to somehow magically and unquantifiably "ease" law enforcement is out of the question.

Re:National Security Act

[Post-O-Matron]

Israel is not "founded using religion". Period.

Israel is a liberal democracy with full freedom of worship. It was founded to serve as a home for Jewish people, which during the 1940s turned out to be a VERY GOOD idea.

In Israel you can be whatever you want: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, gay - even a Slashdot reader. The only implications of the fact that this is a Jewish state are that the official language is Hebrew, the symbols and holidays are based Jewish heritage, and Jews get an automatic citizenship if they apply for one. Nobody is forced to be Jewish. The laws are not based on the Jewish religion but on liberal western principles, with civil rights and protection for minorities.

Explain to me please how any of that is different to Germany, France, Spain or the UK?

If you want to see true Theocraties I suggest you look more to the east than Israel.

Do people still use ICQ?

[masdog]

Do people still use ICQ? I thought it was a dying technology in 2000 when I first signed up for it as it was being supplanted by AIM, Yahoo, and MSN (which have been supplanted in many ways by Facebook).

Re:Do people still use ICQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it be "a dying technology"? Just because it's old?
I've never had any problems with ICQ, but the same can't be said about MSN. If it were up to me I'd use ICQ instead of MSN, but I can't since only russians use it now (technically I can, but I'd have no contacts).

Surprise, surprise

[anti-NAT]

A peer-to-peer architecture would be better for IM - no single point of failure at a server that impacts all conversations, end-to-end security rather than client to server, server to client, and no man in the middle attacks by government agencies or anybody else who chooses to record the conversations going through the servers. I sometimes wonder whether all the public IM servers are run by the "Air America" airline. The only use of a server in IM should be as a directory and participant availability service, not to carry the conversations, unless both participants are behind NAT. If one of the participants have a public IP address the conversations could go direct between the end-points. SIMPLE

Re:Do you have a source for this...

[AngryK9]

Since when has the US Government needed any proof to substantiate any of it's suspicions?

Re:ICQ is AIM

[LostCluster]

I think the fear is that link bay be broken up by this sale.

Anybody who was watching MSNBC's Countdown around 2008-2009 know that there's a highly controlled rooms at AT&T where nearly all long distance telephone traffic flow through and while curious AT&Ters are not allowed, government agents are.

This is the spy community saying "If ICQ moves to Russia, we might not be able to tap it anymore!"

hmmm

[Charliemopps]

I dunno what's more shocking, that the government thinks ICQ has any relevance with anything anymore or that someone thought the network was worth $186 MILLION dollars. That's just insane.

Re:Criminals use ICQ...

[Lord Byron II]

Seriously, where did they get this claim:

"The US said it is sure that most criminals use ICQ"

Who actually said that? The article claims "US law enforcement bodies", but doesn't say which ones. It doesn't even say if they are federal, state, local, or private law enforcement bodies.

"Most" criminals is probably too broad. Maybe they meant terrorists. Maybe they meant spies. Who knows? But I doubt that every drug dealer and pimp out there is using ICQ.

And why would criminals all congregate to the same service? There are lots of great ways to disseminate information (text messages, email, phone calls, etc). Why would criminals use only one particular version (ICQ) of a particular method (IM)?

Re:Obligitory

[jellyfrog]

Eww, that wasn't obligatory at all. In fact, never do it again.

The US is SURE of WHAT??

[purpleraison]

First off, if the 'US' is 'sure' of something (for example weapons of mass destruction), then you can be 100% certain the US is up to no good.

Second, "The US is sure that most criminals use ICQ and..." ---- really?? I will happily plunk down a $1,000,000 bet and walk down to the nearest prison and ask a random sampling of 'criminals' what they know about ICQ. Rest assured, almost none of the criminals will have a clue about ICQ. Kids however, would be able to tell you all about it. ...maybe the US is referring to kids who download shitty music as 'criminals'? If keeping ICQ in order to track a bunch of pimply-faced kids downloading music is 'National Security', then America is truly fucked.

Re:Criminals use ICQ...

[icebike]

Actually developing their own probably calls more attention to themselves than just using something where they can hide in the herd.

But ICQ seems an odd choice. Usership is dwindling, twitter and facebook and any number of other im services are eating its lunch.

One wonders who these "criminals" are that use ICQ.

The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

Priorities

[Wowsers]

Let me get this right, the US authorities are worried about the ICQ* service going to the Russians.... has the US seen just how much their economic rivals China own of the US economy? Get your priorities in order.

* Does anyone actually use ICQ any more?

Re:Criminals use ICQ...

[nametaken]

I've read that most criminals use "phones" to communicate. Where's that Echelon shortcut...

Re:Criminals use ICQ...

[Runaway1956]

""The US said it is sure that most criminals (insert who use ICQ) use ICQ"

There. The sentence still doesn't make a lot sense, but I've fixed it as well as I know how. And, I agree that "most criminals" certainly don't use ICQ. Half the criminals that I know aren't even SMART enough to use ICQ without an IT guy to hold their freaking hands.

Yeah, someone is going to point out that some very intelligent people happen to be criminals - but I'll just remind them that a lot of people become criminals because they are smart enough to make an honest living. And, the dummies far outnumber the smart but dishonest and/or lazy bastards that the US intelligence community might be interested in.

Re:Our government or thiers

[unity100]

and are you a friend of anyone ? even yourselves ? a foreign corporation fucked up an entire ocean worth of ecosystem right now. with all the implications it will do to your health, your small businesses, the people. what happens ? nothing. an entire wall street full of corporations fucked up entire world economy, possibly without any fix. (due to poisonous assets). innumerable crises around the world, billions losing their livelihoods, leave aside whats happening in usa. what happens ? nothing. 4-5 media corporations are buying out laws to fuck up internet for good, to end all anonymity and freedom online so that they can push their business model and make everyone obey it. what happens ? nothing.

excuse me, but wake up; usa is a bigger enemy than russia can ever be, both to the world, and to american people.

Re:You asked for this.

[Mr. Slippery]

All you've done is copy the very same document I linked to way up-thread.

Which is the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Not a "Constitution".

You're digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole, Tastecicles. I'm sorry, but you're simply misinformed, and it's time to become silent, listen, and become more knowledgeable.