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

Criminals use ICQ...

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's the compuserve psychos you have to watch out for.

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:Criminals use ICQ...

[Z00L00K]

And why wouldn't they develop their own protocols for communication?

I can think of various ways to communicate, most of them rather narrow-banded but still useful for key information.

If you are into big time crime you can even get news media to communicate for you, but that means that you must have exchanged some protocol first. Let's say that you agree that news reported in a certain newspaper online can contain some key information - like where a bank heist shall occur. You can then communicate a lot of information through other channels to coordinate the "when" and "how". Then just cause some other happening - like a large fire that will be reported in the news in the area where you shall pull it off.

And even in computer communication you can get around direct tracking, like posting on Slashdot or ping some servers with an incorrect sender address that will cause the ping reply to end up at your expected target system.

Re:Criminals use ICQ...

[ericlondaits]

By now they probably posted the link to this article in the criminal forum and are organizing a mass migration to MSN Messenger, GTalk and Facebook.

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.

Re:Criminals use ICQ...

[tmach]

They aren't going to MSN. Criminals don't want to be spammed any more than the rest of us.

Re:Criminals use ICQ...

[phoenix321]

ICQ has millions of users in the former eastern bloc. ICQ is for Russia and most of its Slavic neighbors pretty much the same as QQ is for China and their neighbors.

People with these ethnic backgrounds living abroad have usually the same preference for their IM networks, of course, to reach the rest of the family back home. Now no one would ever dare to suggest that emigrants from the Eastern Bloc - those that use ICQ - have a high involvement in crime, but I'm sure there's some people who have more than a hunch on that. I wonder where all these new AK47s used in street crime from Belgium to California come from anyway...

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:Criminals use ICQ...

[Anachragnome]

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

They know this because ICQ is really the main communication system of the CIA. It was all the NSA would let them play with.

Re:Criminals use ICQ...

[Securityemo]

No, it's a known fact in information security circles that a lot of criminal stuff goes down, or at least has gone down, over ICQ. Why beats me, maybe it just got widely popular in Russia? It sounds stupid, but consider that until recently, most large-scale botnets where controlled via IRC channels.

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]

And why should they seize it? Last I heard, ICQ was a private company selling to another private company. Do we *really* want the Feds seizing private property / assets (corporate or otherwise) under the guise of national security? Not only does that set a dangerous precedent, it dilutes the true mention of national security. A power-grab if I ever saw one.

The Feds should only be seizing weapons with premeditation that would constitute a clear and present danger. ICQ is not that.

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

[AnAdventurer]

How exactly will the US (ie, my country) block the sale of one company based in Israel to another company based in Russia? On what grounds do we [sic] have the authority to do this?

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

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

There is an option missing in the current /. The worst I've ever been in trouble w/ the law ... poll.

• I have an ICQ account

Re:National Security Act

[Trepidity]

The Israeli company (ICQ) has been a subsidiary of an American company (AOL) since 1998.

Re:National Security Act

[Trepidity]

The U.S. Constitution explicitly acknowledges the federal government's authority to seize property for public use, so long as just compensation is paid.

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

[Kitkoan]

The real question is why to the Russians want it?

Its because ICQ is the most popular IM program used in Russian speaking countries.

Re:National Security Act

[rtb61]

So it would seem that the ICQ purchase is a Russian security issue, I suppose it is because of the location of the servers in Israel. So is US security really complaining or are they the puppets of Israeli security yet again, as you can bet the servers for ICQ will not remain where Israeli security can control them, once a Russian company owns them.

The US President and Russian President chumming it up at a burger joint http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDzHvAcysWQ (I wonder if nutburger Palin is still paranoid about the Russian President leering into her yard), would mean the cold war is well and truly over and Israel's significance in the region (due to Russian support of Arabic nations) is dwindling.

From a Russian perspective it makes normal commercial sense for them to expand into global internet market as can readily be witnessed by the growth of Russian today http://www.rt.com/, pretty much middle of the road english news site in terms of reliability, well ahead of Fox News.

Re:National Security Act

[Mr. Slippery]

The US Constitution, which itself is based upon the British Constitution of 1689, stipulates the right to engage in commerce without interference.

No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't.

There is no "British Constitution of 1689". The "British Constitution" is not a written document but a set of traditions. You may be thinking of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which certainly did inspire similar enumerations by states and eventually by the federal government, but it's a far stretch to say that our Bill of Rights is based on that document.

And the U.S. Constitution does not have any passage about a "right to engage in commerce without interference". (Nor, from my admitted quick scan, does the 1689 Bill of Rights) The Constitution does, though, explicitly stipulate the power of the federal government to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Article I, Section 8). As AOL is an American company, and the buyer is Russian, the feds have legitimate Constitutional authority to regulate the transaction as they wish.

May I suggest you read the document in question before you make statements about what it stipulates?

I tell ya, conservatives and propertarians remind me more and more often of that old Star Trek (TOS) episode where there's a barbarian tribe that worships the Constitution but has no idea what it actually says. ("E pleb neesta...")

Re:National Security Act

[Wyatt Earp]

What about the Jews who were kicked out of Persia, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen?

The insanity was the Arab world's decision to throw the Jews into the sea in 1947, 1967 and 1973. No, the Arab world couldn't stand the thought of a tiny trip of land with Jews on it, so they decided to refuse Israel's right to exist, something that blew up in their faces.

Had Poland, the United Kingdom and France not treated the Holocaust survivors like the cause of the Second World War and given them some options other than death and concentration camps things might have turned out differently.

Israel is not founded on a religion, it's founded on an racial heritage, something that's true from Morocco to Vietnam across Africa and Asia.

Re:National Security Act

[Wyatt Earp]

Casinos in the United States are gaming organizations set up and established by the Indian Tribes, not the White man.

The genocide of Armenia, Greeks and Kurds was far more organized than the American Indian Wars that lead to the conquest of the United States.

Example, the Northern Great Plains Indian Wars from 1850-1890 lead to about 3,000 white deaths and 8-11,000 Indian dead.

600,000 Armenians "died or were massacred during deportation" in the years 1915–1916.

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

[rich_r]

Bzzt! We do not, and never have had, a formal written constitution. If you have citations to refute this, I'd love to see them.

Re:National Security Act

[laura20]

There is no British Constitution, in the sense of a piece of paper that William of Orange could have signed. It's uncodified, famously so. What you are speaking about, in a somewhat confused and uninformed way, is the British Bill of Rights, which is one of the things that make up the Constitution. And while it is an important document in the development of constitutional theory, in no way is "EVERY national constitution is based on the 1689 British Constitution".

Re:National Security Act

[forkazoo]

Would someone please care to define "limited government" in a clear, unambiguous way - this term gets used a lot and despite trying to understand it, I still have no idea what it means. What sort of powers would such a government retain? What services would it provide?

A properly limited government is defined as follows:

A government with sufficient limits that it leaves me alone, but with sufficient powers to bother everybody else to make sure that they leave me alone.

Re:National Security Act

[phoenix321]

The White Man is responsible for all evil in the world. Didn't you get the memo?

It was on telly only yesterday:

Nigeria: all other religions are slowly extinguished, entire provinces convert to Islam, complete with Sharia law and beheadings, stonings and all the other things we've learned to expect from an Islamic state.

Yet, the documentary (done by White Men) blamed the White Man, notably the British, to be responsible for religious warfare in 2010 because of something they did prior to Nigerian independence - what was back in 1950s.

Nigeria is independent since Oct. 1st, 1960, and religious warfare 50 years later is still attributed to White Man even by White Men's documentaries.

I have much respect for the impact that history has on current events, but it's getting increasingly ridiculous.

Re:National Security Act

[Rashdot]

The real question is why to the Russians want it?

Because they have a history of icey queues?

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.

Re:National Security Act

[gumbi west]

It used to be that you could get +5 informative simply by RTA and giving some facts from it, now even quoting something from the summary gets you +5 informative.

Two words:

[bl4nk]

Uh-oh!

ICQ is AIM

[joe_bruin]

As the system is based in Israel, American security service have had access.

While ICQ was founded in Israel, it's been owned by AOL for over a decade. The ICQ network has been integrated with AOL's AIM network many years ago and the servers are located in AOL's network supercenter in Virginia.

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!"

Re:ICQ is AIM

[Kitkoan]

As the system is based in Israel, American security service have had access.

While ICQ was founded in Israel, it's been owned by AOL for over a decade. The ICQ network has been integrated with AOL's AIM network many years ago and the servers are located in AOL's network supercenter in Virginia.

ICQ's networks haven't been integrated with AOL servers, they are still in Tel Aviv, Israel. They are a subsidiary of AOL, but not merged or located in the US. They are 2 different IM programs that were kept separated to appear as if there is competition, this is why you can download both an AIM chat program and a ICQ chat program and the user names are not cross-compatible.

Re:ICQ is AIM

[Kitkoan]

Except, umm, I use my ICQ UID directly on AIM with iChat... oops.

iChat is an instant messaging program that that can support AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo and Google Talk. Unless I'm mistaken, iChat is just using the needed settings to chat with between them. Other programs like Trillian does this as well that I know of.

Re:ICQ is AIM

[Martin Blank]

As an experiment, I logged out of all of my IM connections, and reconnected only ICQ, then watched it in Wireshark. The connection went to 205.188.8.188, a reverse lookup of which resolves to bos-d037b-rdr1.blue.aol.com. I use Digsby primarily, and I thought that may have something to do with it, so I downloaded ICQ 7 into a VM and traced that traffic. The DNS query was for api.screenname.aol.com, and the login attempt went to 207.200.74.251, which resolves to openauthprod-vn01.evip.aol.com.

ICQ switched to AOL's OSCAR protocol several years ago. There is a definite link between the backend architectures of the two programs. AOL largely sold the name, and perhaps included some rights to use the protocol.

Re:ICQ is AIM

[negRo_slim]

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.

Anybody who's been reading the Telecom Informer in 2600 for years now has been aware of the scope of the governments monitoring capabilities in that sector. And I'm sure they're not the only source but I'll be damned if I let you attribute that information to an MSNBC program.

lol.

Re:ICQ is AIM

[Trepidity]

The networks were linked, and user names were made cross-compatible in 2002. If you login to AIM, and send a message to a "username" consisting of an ICQ number, it will be delivered.

All criminals use ICQ.

[OnePumpChump]

But good luck, they're behind 7 proxies.

in soviet russia

[circletimessquare]

kgb c u but usa no c u!

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:Surprise, surprise

[Stupendoussteve]

AIM has supported this for years, it's called Direct Connection. Trillian and Pidgin both support IM encryption as well.

Another option is to run your own XMPP server, which can at least guarantee that conversations on that server are safe, but not necessarily those with people on other servers.

Re:Surprise, surprise

[LostCluster]

Direct Connection has been removed more recent versions of AIM because its risks outweighed its benefits. Disclosing your IP address to somebody you barely or don't know is risky. Disclosing your IP address and the fact you're using an certain versions AIM is an invitation to hackers.

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?

If *I* were a criminal....

[buanzo]

i'd hide myself behind russian proxies and use ICQ. The "intelligence" community is *SO* trusting...

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: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.

Don't listen to RT propaganda

[ExtraT]

A warning to people out here: RT is the Russian international propaganda channel - ANYTHING it reports should be taken with a grain of salt and verified through other sources.

RT is a farely new Russian government owned news channel, and has been gaining more and more presence everywhere lately. Their journalism is extremely untrustworthy - fabrications are common and government anti-america propaganda is rampant.

Re:ICQ used by any people at all ?

[ExtraT]

LOL, that's actually the funny part.

You see, ICQ is very popular in Russia - hence the interest to buy it. RT, being a propaganda horn of the lowest caliber, doesn't realize that by issuing such generalizations it actually reaffirms the public's view of modern Russia: criminal and corrupt. Which, by the way, is actually true :)

Anyhoo, anything coming from RT must be taken with a grain of salt - it is a propaganda channel after all....

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?

Who uses ICQ? /sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, seriously. People who claim or think ICQ is barely used by anybody nowadays obviously have their heads too far up their ass. You do realize that there exists a wide, grand world outside of the glorious US of fuckin' A, right? Just because ICQ isn't popular in the US doesn't mean it's the same way everywhere else. ICQ is very widely used in Germany, for example. Some other comment mentioned the ex-USSR countries as well. Even if you say it as a joke ... it's not funny. Those of us who know otherwise just facepalm and remember that the internet is full of blithering idiots like you.

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:unicode or buffer overflow

[Nimey]

How would you know that unless you were a COMMUNIST SPY?!?!?

The computer is my friend!!!

ICQ vie QIP

[Max_W]

ICQ is used in FSU via a convenient client "Qip" http://qip.ru/ Almost nobody is using an original ICQ client.

I think the US and RF governments should fight cyber-crime together.

Businesses in the FSU usually have a low profit margin. At the same time, the USA is one of the top spam generating countries http://www.projecthoneypot.org/spam_server_top_countries.php

Spam kills our businesses in FSU because colleagues spend a lot of working time on dealing with it. Spam filters do not help anymore. This is an area where the RF government should be interested in cooperation with the US authorities to reduce the amount of spam incoming into our businesses. Without an international effort this problem can not be solved.

I guess there could be criminals who may use ICQ, but I know for sure that there are criminals who flood our servers with spam. Significant part of this spam has the US origin. So there is a vast field for law enforcement agencies to cooperate.

For example, a mobile police team from Russia could bust a spam kings, say, in Alabama, destroy spam servers and go home in Russia. It is much harder task to do for local cops. And vice-versa. A team of the US police officers could bust, say, a soft pirates' sweetshop somewhere in Siberia and go home after destroying the illegal production and equipment. Again it is not an easy task for local police to come and destroy a business, even an illegal one.

Nowadays when we are in one and the same network it would be more productive to cooperate than to confront.

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.