Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

HavenCo Doing Well 400

Posted by timothy from the private-enterprise dept.
davecl writes: "The off-shore datahaven, HavenCo, is doing well, according to the BBC. HavenCo is based on a WW2 gunnery platform several miles of the English coast. In the 60s it was outside the 3 mile territorial waters, and a retired Army officer moved there and proclaimed it the independent state of Sealand. In the 80s territorial waters were extended to 12 miles. Sealand's nation status is this unclear, but this hasn't stopped HavenCo setting up their data haven. Customers are largely gambling sites, but an increasing number of political groups, such as the Tibetan Government in Exile, are based there in an effort to escape government censorship. More regulation of the web means more customers, and business is booming. Wonder if others will see this as a way of making money out of beating censorship?" We've mentioned Sealand several times before -- it's great to hear they're defying the skeptics.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HavenCo Doing Well More

HavenCo Doing Well

Comments Filter:

  • Sealand (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @06:39PM (#3853063)
    Just incase anyone is interested in Sealand

    http://www.sealandgov.com/

  • Ashcroft (Score:3, Troll)

    by dattaway ( 3088 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @06:40PM (#3853069) Homepage Journal
    If they are out of control of the US Government, will be they labled as terrorists and bombed?

  • If they get too successful (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @06:43PM (#3853083) Homepage Journal
    they will get shut down.

    The reality of the situation is that Sealand exists because they just are not worth going after.

    If they cause too much trouble they'll get shut down. (not 'right' but that is the reality of it)

    .
    • If the US can invade Panama and seize the president, then certainly England can safely invade a data haven just off her's shores. I love the idea of data havens, but how can you protect one. If you join the UN, then you have to follow it's rules. The only way I see is a huge military, but that takes all the fun out of it.

  • more info (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cr@ckwhore ( 165454 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @06:45PM (#3853089) Homepage
    I took interest in the story of Sealand about 2 years ago. There's plenty of reading material available on the web..

    try www.sealandgov.com... excellent historical information, including Sealand's first naval battle.

    Also,www.fruitsofthesea.demon.co.uk/sealand/ has a decent picture gallery so you can visualize just how small this platform is.

    I had an email conversation with somebody at sealand back when I first heard of the place. I kept the email... funny thing, it usually took them a few months to reply. Being that havenco is very security oriented, I'm sure they use latency to their advantage for communications. Interesting rule of Havenco... customers aren't allowed to supply their own machines in the sake of security.

    • It must have more to it than it appears... space in the pillars, perhaps. The history page says that 200 soldiers were stationed there (presumably, at the same time), and the little hut on top isn't enough room for 25 and their food and gear, much less 200.

      • Re:more info (Score:4, Interesting)

        by stefanlasiewski ( 63134 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMstefanco.com> on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @07:31PM (#3853309) Homepage Journal
        It must have more to it than it appears... space in the pillars, perhaps.

        One pillar holds the server rooms, and one holds the living quarters.

        The history page says that 200 soldiers were stationed there (presumably, at the same time), and the little hut on top isn't enough room for 25 and their food and gear, much less 200.

        No, 200 people cannot live on that thing at the same time.

        Think about it: it was a platform for anti-aircraft guns, and not many guns could fit on that deck. You don't need 200 people to man a handful of anti-aircraft guns.

        I read an article once (which I could find the link) which talked a bit about the admins at HavenCo. There are 1-3 admins present at a time (I think they are the owners of HavenCo also), and one of their biggest complaints was that there was nowhere to go on your break. You could go for a walk around the platform, but that would keep you occupied for about 5 minutes.

    • Re:more info (Score:4, Informative)

      by chill ( 34294 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @07:01PM (#3853182) Journal
      They advertise a 3 ms ping time to London, so latency should be quite a bit better, now. I believe somewhere I read about a sat link for backup.

      The courts of England once ruled that Sealand was out of their jurisdiction for a potential criminal case. Weapons violation, I think. It should make things interesting in the future.
      • They advertise a 3 ms ping time to London, so latency should be quite a bit better, now. I believe somewhere I read about a sat link for backup.

        If they have a 3ms ping time to London then they're using direct microwave, and they can be shut down at a moment's notice by the British authorities. Hell, I could shut them down with a compass, a telescope, and a toy balloon. Once they decide they don't like me doing that, they're going to have to accept British jurisdiction in a real hurry.

        The courts of England once ruled that Sealand was out of their jurisdiction for a potential criminal case.

        "The courts of England." Please. You make it sound like a concerted nationwide legal consensus. Some random piddling backwater judge decided he'd rather take the long weekend and dismissed the case as not being appropriate for the specific jurisdiction it was brought under.

        • Re:more info (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, 2002 @12:08AM (#3854386)
          "The courts of England." Please. You make it sound like a concerted nationwide legal consensus. Some random piddling backwater judge decided he'd rather take the long weekend and dismissed the case as not being appropriate for the specific jurisdiction it was brought under.

          It was not "some random backwater piddling judge". Read the history [sealandgov.com].
          The first time it was ruled that Sealand wasn't part of England the "King" of Sealand was accused of firing on British ships when they tried to take back Sealand. In case you didn't know, attacking Navy ships isn't exactly a small crime. Random backwater judges don't get cases like those.

          Ten years later, the King's son was kidnapped and Sealand was invaded. When he took back Sealand he also held several prisoners of war. When the governments of the Netherlands and Germany (where the POWs were from) asked Britain to intervene, Britain cited the previous court case stating that Sealand was a seperate nation and not under British jurisdiction. Germany ended up sending a diplomat directly to Sealand.
    • Image the amount of equipment that might show up if customers could send boxes? How many gambling sites do you think are super sensitive when it comes to server density.

      Also, and you imagine how hard it would be to get hundreds of pounds shipped to this platform? Here's a hint: I don't think UPS or FedEX deliver here.

      If I ran this joint, I'd buy up some HP blades and start handing out accounts to them.

      -Pete

    • Why no .sea? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by namespan ( 225296 )
      Why don't they have a TLD?

      Anyone know?

  • I wonder what will happen if the British Government decides to collect taxes there?

    Or have they been collecting taxes all along, and just don't care about the rest?

    • I wonder what will happen if the British Government decides to collect taxes there?

      It's not very likely, since Britain's own courts have recognized the sovereignty of Sealand.

      Or have they been collecting taxes all along, and just don't care about the rest?

      No, Britain hasn't been collecting taxes, and the royal family of Sealand (and presumably whatever citizens live there) haven't been paying any taxes to the UK.

      Sealand has even fought a "war," and won, after which Germany ended up sending a diplomat to Sealand to negotiate the release of one of their citizens who was being held on charges of treason (the German also carried a Sealand passport). This amounted to a defacto recognition of Sealand's sovereignty (Germany first went to the British and were told that Britain made no claim to the territory of Sealand).

      All of this information (and more) is available on the Sealand website [sealandgov.com], which is the first link that appears when you do a google search [google.com] on the keyword "Sealand" (see the History section).

      • Re:Collecting Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
        It's not very likely, since Britain's own courts have recognized the sovereignty of Sealand.

        That is Sealand propaganda. The court actually rulled that the platform was outside UK territorial waters and thus not subject to UK law. There are many parts of the world that are outside UK jurisdiction, not all of them are states.

        In particular under UK law a man made platform is considered to be a ship and not land.

        When the UK expanded its territorial limits the platform came under the jurisdiction of the UK courts again. HavenCo have ownership of the place under the UK squatting laws (12 years occupation).

      • Britain's own courts have recognized the sovereignty of Sealand.

        Meaningless. The Essex Assizes finding of no jurisdiction carries no legal precedent. When another case is brought against the Sealand people, the judge who hears it will have to consider the jurisdiction question anew.

        Sealand has even fought a "war," and won, after which Germany ended up sending a diplomat to Sealand to negotiate the release of one of their citizens who was being held on charges of treason (the German also carried a Sealand passport). This amounted to a defacto recognition of Sealand's sovereignty (Germany first went to the British and were told that Britain made no claim to the territory of Sealand).

        What happened was that Britain chose not to get involved because they thought the whole thing was stupid, and there was no potential outcome to their involvement that wouldn't be a lot more annoying than the whole thing already was. Furthermore, by the time of this incident they had already contemplated taking action to evict Roy Bates but decided it wasn't worth the public expense. There is no evidence (save for the Bates' assertion) that the UK made any statement disavowing sovereignty.

        To call an internecine gangland dispute between Bates and their shifty business associates a "war" is to make a mockery of the term.

        All of this information (and more) is available on the Sealand website

        I worry for someone who has such a profound confusion between "propaganda" and "information".

  • Pretending (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @06:47PM (#3853101) Homepage
    It's sweet that HavenCo can sit out in the ocean and play make-believe, but how long do you *really* think they could last if they ever hosted something that really caught the ire of Britain? They have no political recognition, no real ability to defend themselves and no sort of general support from anyone.

    Really, there are no real protections to be had here other than those provided by British law -- everything else is a mere SAS raid away from extinction. You could set this place up anywhere in the semi-free world and provide the same level of protection -- it's all just a publicity stunt.

    • Re:Pretending (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AndrewHowe ( 60826 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @06:54PM (#3853140)
      They played by the rules. Without doubt, they are a sovereign nation (check the history of Sealand if you don't believe me). Yes, the SAS could raid them, but that would effectively mean that the UK had declared war on another nation. That wouldn't be a particularly good PR exercise.

      • Re:Pretending (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @07:01PM (#3853183) Homepage
        that would effectively mean that the UK had declared war on another nation

        In practice, national governments don't get any sort of protection unless someone pretty important recognizes them as being legit -- look at what the US did in Afghanistan, for chrissake.

        That aside, you don't even need to be a government to take this place out -- a well-placed shaped charge on one of the supports would send this SOB to the bottom of the ocean, and *anyone* with sufficiant knowledge and motivation could do it.

        I'll believe in a data haven when one shows up in a real country. This place is just hype.

        • Re:Pretending (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JCCyC ( 179760 )
          That aside, you don't even need to be a government to take this place out -- a well-placed shaped charge on one of the supports would send this SOB to the bottom of the ocean, and *anyone* with sufficiant knowledge and motivation could do it.

          Resorting to violence would be a PR blunder, as someone else has already pointed out. What they can do, however, is sue the pants off (anyone who does business with)^N them. Bye bye, Internet link. Bye bye, revenue. Bye bye, food and water.

          Feel free to add any Revelations reference you feel like.

        • Re:Pretending (Score:2, Interesting)

          by AndrewHowe ( 60826 )
          It's a good analogy, I guess, since I think I am right in saying that the coalition (not just the US) didn't actually declare war on Afghanistan. But, neither did they actually wage war against Afghanistan (collateral damage notwithstanding). However, there seems (although us Joe Public farties have yet to be given conclusive proof) to have been a fairly good reason for the attacks against Al-Queda. I don't think that anything Sealand does would mandate deadly force!
        • I'll believe in a data haven when one shows up in a real country. This place is just hype.

          By some accounts, this is a datahaven in Britain. Is it just hype if their actively working as a datahaven? It's only hype if they stop.
        • The Taliban was not the recognised government of Afganistan, the recognised government was that of President Rabbani who was deposed (and executed?) by the Taliban in 1997. The Taliban was recognised by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
          For more information Taliban [amazon.com] by Ahmed Rashid is a good read, he met and interviewed Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and most of the prime protaganists in the recent conflict while researching this book

          Alex
        • You don't even need to be a government to take this place out...and *anyone* with sufficiant knowledge and motivation could do it.

          Yes, but why pay $20,000 for some Black Market C4 explosives when I can just "plant" some convincing evidence into their systems that link them to some Terrorist organization?

          As soon as GW finds out that this "nation" is a center for terrorist activity, he'll bomb that place so bad that the only land that country still has to its name will be at the bottom of the sea!

      • Re:Pretending (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @07:26PM (#3853293)
        "Without doubt, they are a sovereign nation (check the history of Sealand if you don't believe me)."

        You are not a sovereign nation just because you say so. The only way you can get nation status is if you are officially recognized by other nations. Period. This has been proven in history time and again, and labelling a period of history either as a "revolution" or a "civil war" hinges on this one fact.

        Sealand isn't listed in the CIA World Factbook. As far as I'm concerned they are not a sovereign nation. And in this day and age if the US says you're not a country, you're up a creek without a flag. Just ask Ravalomanana when he really became the president of Madagascar.

        "Yes, the SAS could raid them, but that would effectively mean that the UK had declared war on another nation."

        It would only be seen that way by any countries that have decided to see Sealand as a sovereign nation. And who is that? Anyone? Not the US, not the EU, not the UN, not anybody that has much more than a Red Ryder BB gun.

        It's just like when the US "invaded the Confederate States of America." The powers of Europe never saw the CSA as an independent nation, so the entire civil war (as opposed to a revolution) was seen as an internal matter by the rest of the world.

        So you go ahead and keep believing that it's a sovereign nation. And you can be as outraged as you want once the place gets shut down. It's not going to change the fact that 99.9% of the world sees it as an internal affair of the British and it certainly won't change the fact that Sealand will be shut down just the same.
        • You are not a sovereign nation just because you say so.
          As far as I'm concerned they are not a sovereign nation.
          Hmm.
          Well, you are probably right in practical terms, but even if Sealand is not a sovereign nation, it sure as shit isn't part of the UK.

        • Re:Pretending (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
          It's just like when the US "invaded the Confederate States of America." The powers of Europe never saw the CSA as an independent nation, so the entire civil war (as opposed to a revolution) was seen as an internal matter by the rest of the world.

          That is a very good point, during the war of independence the critical turning point was recognition of the US by France. During the US Civil War the European powers were at one point within a few weeks of recognizing the confederate states. Had that happened the secessionists would probably have succeeded. Then the tide started to go the other way and the European powers decided to stay out of the affair.

          The Sealand people are no different from the numerous loonies to be found in Montana and the like in places called 'JustUs County' and such. They can argue from dawn to dusk, but at the end of the day Mao was right on the origin of power.

          • "Supreme executive power should derive from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony."

            Oops, wrong quote. "...from the barrel of a gun", right?

        • I seem to recall that Britan raided a few of the "independent" pirate radio stations of the '60's/'70's. Radio Caroline, etc. I'd Google for a ref, but I'm too lazy and I don't need the karma. Ah what the hell: Radio Caroline [radiocaroline.co.uk] "At this time all British broadcasting was being overhauled by means of the 1990 Broadcasting Act. Caroline examined the draft document but found only minor reference to marine radio. At the last moment however extra pages were added giving the UK armed forces wide powers to board radio ships in international waters and silence them using whatever force was thought appropriate. To block any possibility of legal redress, such as that which O'Rahilly was already seeking after the 1989 raid, future boarders whoever they may be were to be granted immunity from prosecution. It was a dreadful piece of legislation which one would only expect from a totalitarian state. Caroline fought in the British House Of Lords supported by 29 Peers but the government won. The Broadcasting Act would become law in the first moments of 1991."

          I suppose that could be stretched to cover a data haven. (Or just pass another law.)

        • Re:Pretending (Score:2, Interesting)

          by tybalt44 ( 176219 )
          I would tend to disagree. The point is not that the UK wouldn't want to "shut them down", but whether they would actually do so. Were the matter something as serious as a "terrorist" attack, they might well do so. That said, Sealand know how precarious their toehold is and have already committed themselves quite clearly (see the government website) to coming down as hard on this as everyone else. Any action would be undoubtedly undertaken (quietly) in a spirit of comity, which allows Sealand to go on claiming sovereignty and Britain to go on ignoring the issue. The very last thing Britain wants to do, is to shut down Sealand, and that's because they then run the risk of their own courts declaring that they have no jurisdiction. In the end, that's the greatest weapon Sealand has: the threat of a bewigged judge in a "foreign" country. A British court is absolutely bound to rule according to the rule of law, and the government is absolutely bound to it. In a sphere where international law rules are invoked, they are going to have to be considered. And a ruling against the British government is going to mean big trouble for Britain... they simply can't disobey a court order from their own court. The British judiciary, remember, has a worldwide reputation for probity (one reason why they are chosen so often as the governing jurisdiction of international contracts). They're not likely to rule one way simply because the government would prefer it.

          • Re:Pretending (Score:3, Insightful)

            by AndroidCat ( 229562 )
            *snort*! As I posted nearby, Britain has already done exactly that sort of thing with pirate radio stations. They passed a bill making it legal to shut them down.

            If Sealand ever became a pain in the ass, they would do the same thing again. What was it that Machiavelli said about princes always being able to find an excuse? It's still true today.

            • They didn't make it legal, it was effectively piracy in international waters. What they did do was give immunity from prosecution to anyone returning to the UK after doing the deed.
      • They played by the rules. Without doubt, they are a sovereign nation (check the history of Sealand if you don't believe me).

        The Iraquois and the Apache were sovereign nations, that did not do them much good. In the case of 'Sealand' the UK govt. has a 12 mile territorial claim that is uncontested by any other nation state recognized by the UN.

        Yes, the SAS could raid them, but that would effectively mean that the UK had declared war on another nation. That wouldn't be a particularly good PR exercise.

        Have a look at our history sometime. We spent most of the past 500 years invading places on tenuous pretexts. It was rarely unpopular.

        Actually the UK does not need to use the SAS to invade, they just arrest Ryan at Heathrow Airport when he flies in or out.

        Basically the way things work in the UK is that people can pretty much do what they please so long as they appear to be harmless. MI5 probably prefer to have all the HavenCo customers where they can see them and tap them than have them scatterted all over the place.

        What would lead to problems is if they did start collecting arms. That is not going to be considered humourously.

        • Basically the way things work in the UK is that people can pretty much do what they please so long as they appear to be harmless. MI5 probably prefer to have all the HavenCo customers where they can see them and tap them than have them scatterted all over the place.

          It'd be easy enough to tap any fibre cables Sealand has (have to find some work for those subs), and a satellite connection without really good encryption might as well be broadcast in clear.

          If Sealand wasn't there to provide a "secure" data haven, MI5 would probably have to start their own. (Now there's a thought: Privatize the NSA! [Of course, some might claim that the CIA has already gone partially private-sector.])

      • They played by the rules. Without doubt, they are a sovereign nation (check the history of Sealand if you don't believe me).

        Sealand is about a sovereign as the Hutt River Province [vicnet.net.au] (i.e., not at all).

        Citing a web site full of self-serving assertions does not "prove" anything.

        They might have a chance at being considered effectively sovereign when they are admitted into an IGO, exchange accredited diplomats with someone - even North Korea, for heaven's sake - or, say, own some land which is not already the territory of another nation (i.e., the UK).

    • The point is that they *won't* cross that line.
      • The point is that they *won't* cross that line.

        We'll see if that holds out as soon as the US thinks Osama might have some old email on one of Sealand's servers.

        What I'm saying is that no government has found it worthwhile or necessary to take over/blow up Sealand yet, but if they ever have any information which really *needs* a data haven ("Free Tibet" doesn't count), you'll see the place end really fast.

    • From what I have heard, they have quite a lot of guns on Sealand, and are clearly willing to defend themselves from foreign invasion. Now, one might argue that they wouldn't last long against the SAS - but putting SAS soldiers lives at risk (given that the British courts have recognised Sealand's right to defend itself) should serve as a significant disincentive for any invasion (as would the risk that the British government could be taken to court for mounting such an invasion afterwards).
    • So, what does it mean if someone does the same thing to an island that is further out, say 100 miles offshore? Suppose some company got major VC backing for it and was able to afford a navy even, what then?
      • It would be a different situation.

        Before Prince Roy formed Sealand, it was an abandonded military post in international waters. The UK didn't claim it until AFTER Prince Roy formed Sealand. So by some accounts, Sealand didn't violate any international laws, and may actually be a legitimate nation (but only as long as the UK tollerates them).

        There are few (if any) islands out there which are NOT claimed by one nation or another. So in order to take over an island for yourself, even if you had your own navy, you'd have to invade another nation and violate international laws. You'd get even less recognition then Sealand. The US might even label you as a terrorist group.

        I suppose that you could in theory build your own island, and then claim it for yourself. There are people trying to do that, but usually the "Island" is really a big boat (Check out the Freedom Ship [freedomship.com] (It will only cost you $170,000 for a 350 square foot apartment with no kitchen!
    • Sure, anyone with enough clout could destroy Sealand. Even if the UK government knew that international courts would find in Sealand's favour they still wouldn't hesitate to destroy it since loosing the case would cost them very little either in money or PR, but that is not the point.

      As I understood it, HavenCo do not guarantee that your data will be preserved, they just guarantee that no-one else will get hold of it. I presume that they have some will rehearsed scheme for destroying all the data very quickly if they are going to be over-run. How? I have no idea, but we can all dream up schemes involving rapid overwriting of encrypted file systems and tape backup cabinets with thermite charges in them.

  • Seems to me they are probably a big customer for real dense servers. I wonder if HP has sicked a salesman an them yet trying to sell some blade servers.

    Not a whole lot of space in which to enlarge their datacenter. I would be interested to know what their capacity is. The (ah-hem) island looks pretty small from the pictures I have seen. The economics of running this place must be very different from the standard co-lo.

    -Pete
  • Do not miss Ryan Lackey's die hard message [inet-one.com] to the Cypherpunks mailing list. Possibly based on some Crackmonkey talk [crackmonkey.org] by the infamous Nick Moffitt. Rather amusing, I would say .-)

  • Online Gambling? Here's one... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dghcasp ( 459766 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @06:50PM (#3853118)
    Sealand's claim to soverignty is based on the premise that when GBr extended its territorial limit from 3km to 12kb, it shouldn't affect Sealand, since Sealand had declared itself a nation before that point.

    Which sounds fine, but British authorities/government have never really had any reason to test this in the courts.

    Who wants to get in on an online pool as to how long it will be before HavenCo pisses off some big corporation, which puts pressure on on GBr to shut them down? How long for the courts to weigh "I'm a big corporation that pays lots of tax" vs. "I'm not a British subject because I live on a piller in the middle of the ocean due to a technicallity. Neener Neener."

    We could host the poll on HavenCo... Whoever has the entry for the day the site goes off the net, wins...

    • Who cares what the British courts say? According to the international rules, Sealand was already a sovereign nation. You can't extend your territorial limits into another nation's declared area! We (I'm english :) were too late. Our courts only have durisdiction within our territorial limits. In fact, our courts have already ruled that Sealand lies outside of those limits. That is what is so cool about Sealand! Hehehe!
      • Who cares what the British courts say? According to the international rules, Sealand was already a sovereign nation. You can't extend your territorial limits into another nation's declared area!

        Who says so?

        The US was formed through precisely that mechanism. Indian land was declared to belong to first the British crown, then after the revolution to the US. The US even bought land from France and Russia despite the fact that there were recognized nations occupying the territory.

        Most of the British Empire was obtained in precisely the way you describe. We got Australia and New Zealand by declaring it Terra Nullis and occupying it.

        The US acquired Hawaii in the same way.

    • I should preface this with a big IANAL though I'm just finishing my 2nd International Law class...but I don't claim to know jack

      Well, their claim to statehood really isn't that thin from an international legal standpoint
      Britain and Germany did give them what amounts to de facto recognition (Britain in a ruling which stated that British gun laws didn't apply there, and Germany in treating Sealand as a state independant of Britain after 'Sealands War')
      Sealand did maintain its claim to independance after GBr's extension of territorial limits which helps reaffirm Sealands soverignity.

      It probably would (greatly) benefit from creating more established relations with other nations to help it's international profile (the more nations that recognize you the better, the best'd to get an international organization to formally recognize them), especially in a situation of distress but, regardless there is a strong case on the international legal level in Sealands favor should some nation take direct action against Sealand.

      I'd say they'd be more endangered by 'embargoes' and a few special forces with some C4 at the bases than a direct open invasion...

  • State saturation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ftobin ( 48814 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @06:51PM (#3853122) Homepage

    One of the things that worries me about the world is the fact that on the globe as it is, it is saturated with nation-states; that is, there is no room to expand to and create a new, independent community. Without this ability, it becomes harder to justify traditional philosphies of governments being social contracts, since your options are limited to the existing states; you cannot form a 'new' contract with a group of people, unless you planning on revolution.

    I'm glad to see an attempt such as Sealand being made, but am disheartened that no other significant nations recognize it (IANAL, but from what little I've read, it seems that it independent from Britain). Hopefully, if we ever do any space-exploration and colonization, we'll get some nation states, to help diversify the current sitatuaion.

    • Actually I'm not sure how the current treaties of international waters wokr, though I'd assume that theoretically you could claim land on the ocean bottom which is 12 mi (current national waters limit?) away from another nation's waters.

      And ideally in a democratic state you could propose a new contract, which is then voted among the populace with the one limiting thing being that you allow others to offer new contracts every $foo years.
    • Do you mean like in Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age [salon.com]?

    • Re:State saturation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ian Bicking ( 980 ) <ianb@nOspaM.colorstudy.com> on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @11:18PM (#3854193) Homepage
      To make a new nation you have to do like the US did -- take it from another people. Most of the planet has been, if not saturated, at least occupied by people, this didn't just come to pass in modern times (though the Americas were depopulated by disease, which did leave a bit of a power vacuum).

      Israel has come into existence in modern times on much the same principle. They pretended that nothing existed there prior, and up and created a new nation. It's quite racist. But I can also understand the excitement of nation building, and Israel has done many interesting things.

      So, depending on what you define as unoccupied land, you can still find yourself a frontier. Who are you willing (and able) to kill or displace? You had to do it then, and you have to do it now. Otherwise you have to replace a state via reform or revolution, just like it's always been done.

  • Good to hear (Score:5, Interesting)

    by No Such Agency ( 136681 ) <abmackay AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @06:56PM (#3853154)
    It seems pretty clear that HavenCo won't refuse to host a site because their management don't agree with the political viewpoint expressed therein. They reserve the right to close down a hosted site for their own protection:

    "All of our contracts give HavenCo the right to cancel at will if the customer's web site or service is endangering our access to Internet connectivity, reasons for which spam is typically #1."

    as well as in their capacity as a sovereign state:

    "Material that is unlawful in the jurisdiction of the server. For instance, if a customer's machine is hosted on Sealand by HavenCo, content which is illegal in Sealand may not be published or housed on that server. Sealand's laws prohibit child pornography (emphasis mine). Sealand currently has no regulations regarding copyright, patents, libel, restrictions on political speech, non-disclosure agreements, cryptography, restrictions on maintaining customer records, tax or mandatory licensing, DMCA, music sharing services, or other issues; child pornography is the only content explicitly prohibited. At the present time, child pornography is not precisely defined; HavenCo is obeying rules similar to those of the United States, specifically a prohibition on any depiction of those under 18 in a sexual context."

    (from HavenCo's Acceptable Use Policy). The first makes sense, it's for the "greater good" of the company and their other clients. The second is their right as a "nation". The real test would be, I suppose, if the US or UK gov't said "We will bomb the fuck out of you if you don't stop hosting www.ilovetaliban.com". That would definitely "endanger their access to the internet". However, this scenario would be a PR nightmare for the aggressor (the inhabitants of Sealand are, after all, Caucasian!), and is therefore somewhat unlikely.
    • 'The real test would be, I suppose, if the US or UK gov't said "We will bomb the fuck out of you if you don't stop hosting www.ilovetaliban.com".'

      The last thing they would do is, IMHO. That is the equivilent of saying 'we recognise you'. After all, the UK government is not allowed to 'bomb the fuck out of' its own citizens.

      ps - very interesting article from about 18 months ago in Wired on Sealand. Can't be bothered to find the URL, but it'd be pretty easy to find out.
  • Last time I read about sealand I spoiled about a whole afternoon on reading about micronations and fictional countries. Some things are really interesting, others are just plain silly (or funny). If you are interested, here is a link to diplomatically recognised real small countries and micronations [angelfire.com]. Guess, what I actually live in one of those.

    The funniest one I found was a fictional micronation called Talossa [talossa.tv], this guy just declared his bedroom independent and it evolved in some kind of political online game.

  • consider me a semen! uh... i mean a seminite, or uh...

  • Nation status seems very clear... (Score:4, Informative)

    by automatic_jack ( 181074 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @07:04PM (#3853198) Homepage
    In the 80s territorial waters were extended to 12 miles. Sealand's nation status is this unclear, but this hasn't stopped HavenCo setting up their data haven.
    This doesn't seem to be the case. This page [sealandgov.com] on Sealand's web site clearly states:
    On 1 October, 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles. The previous day, Prince Roy declared the extension of Sealand's territorial waters to be a like 12 nautical miles, so that right of way from the open sea to Sealand would not be blocked by British claimed waters. No treaty has been signed between Britain and Sealand to divide up the overlapping areas, but a general policy of dividing the area between the two countries down the middle can be assumed. International law does not allow the claim of new land during the extension of sea rights, so Sealand's sovereignty was safely "grandfathered" in. Britain has no more right to Sealand's territory than Sealand has to the territory of the British coastline that falls within its claimed 12 nautical mile arc.
    • International law does not allow the claim of new land during the extension of sea rights, so Sealand's sovereignty was safely "grandfathered" in

      But Sealand is not land, it is a man made platform which under international law does not count for anything as far as territorial claims are concerned.

  • ... was published in Wired [wired.com] two years ago.

  • Yo-ho-ho (Score:2, Interesting)

    by unicron ( 20286 )
    This entire thing smacks of children playing pirates on the open seas, it's kind of funny.

    As for the logistics of it, where does their pipe come ashore? Somewhere in the world that line has to meet another line goverened by a country with stricter laws, which seems to me would end everything right there.

  • Censorship (Score:3, Informative)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @07:24PM (#3853283) Journal

    Wonder if others will see this as a way of making money out of beating censorship?

    Here [stop-spam.org]'s a list of some companies making money out of beating censorship.

  • Screw all of this decentralized indexing nonsense: just put the napster server on there, but still let the files live where they will.
  • Principality Notice PN 011/01: Sealand offers assistance to US 20 September 2001 The Principality condemns the recent global terrorist activities and announces that any such related activity whether real or intended undertaken within its Territorial limits shall be considered an act against Sealand Criminal Code which provides for placing any persons suspected of such activities under immediate arrest and detention at the Sovereign's pleasure. The Principality has communicated directly with the United States of America offering its resources and making them available not only to the USA but to any State for the purpose of suppressing terrorist acts of any kind. Its sympathy and concern for all effected was expressed. The Principality is on a state of alert, and all activities are currently subject to scrutiny by Sealand authorities who are co-operating as appropriate with the International community to combat terrorism of whatever kind.
  • Starting your own nation is a good way to lose sensorship, but it's also a good way to lose protection.

    What's to stop some country (or some whacko, if there's a difference) who dislikes one of your customer's opinions from destroying Sealand?
  • Was the Tibetan Govt in Exile really worried that they couldn't get hosted in - oh, I dunno - the USA?

    While it sounds like they think of themselves as a bunch of white knights, I doubt it's primarily a lofty speech issue - these guys will end up hosting the lunatic fringe that no one else would touch largely for legal reasons that are grey at best in most countries where they answer the phones.

    If all they do is host annoying clients - gambling and the like, then it's a real non-story and these guys are just amusing themselves.

    And if someone really wants to drop the hammer on one of their clients, they can always go upstream - this is satellite linked after all, and Sealand doesn't have any control over that.

    Plus, anyone can sue the companies doing the business with Sealand - it doesn't seem to offer incorporation for these businesses - so there's still a base of business and people obviously in charge that can get the law sic'd on them, no matter where the servers are.
  • I wonder how many small (and large) Internet radio shops could relocate to Sealand just to give the finger to the RIAA and the CARP rulings. Imagine if a site live Live365 had to buggger out of the States and move offshore...
    • It only works if the company and company CEO live in Sealand also. Even thou your servers are hosted on the moon, the courts will go after the company and employees first.

      So... Base your company in Sealand, and make the records offlimits to courts outside Sealand. Maybe use a few dummy corps around the world to throw off courts.

      -Devils Advocate-
      I remember seeing how someone sued a corporation, they lost and couldnt sell thier products in the USA. The customs agents siezed the products at request of the courts. Seems you could use these laws to request ISPs to block SeaHeaven.

      TOO MANY IFS!
  • This is a floating Cayman Islands or Bermuda. Tax free, regulation free - a techno brass plate corporation.

    Boeing airliners are turned over to their customers in mid air over international waters to avoid taxes with just this sort of thing in mind.

  • Update & Misc. (Score:5, Informative)

    by rdl ( 4744 ) <`ryan' `at' `venona.com'> on Tuesday July 09, 2002 @11:51PM (#3854352) Homepage
    There were a few minor inaccuracies in the article; we don't actually host the Tibet Online site (we were going to, but it was just an organizational confusion, and it ended up not happening); we don't rely exclusively on satellite; etc.

    I'm going to be at H2K2 in NYC and at DEF CON X in Vegas. Avi Freedman and I are speaking about HavenCo at H2K2; I'm doing something else at DC X :) I actually get to go to Burning Man this year, too, heh.

    Basically, we're now at the point where the company is entirely self-sustaining and growing financed by revenues, which is ideal; we had to put off some interesting stuff earlier due to lack of time and other resources, but we can finally move forward on these things. (Everything is basically automated, too, which is always good -- I'm considering releasing some of our colo management software under GPL later this year)

    Our policy about what we'll host is unchanged; basically anything goes, as long as it doesn't endanger our network connectivity (it's unlikely anyone will invade/destroy Sealand, far more likely they'd get our addresses blocked at a bunch of routers in various countries). Spam and hacking would get us blocked by network admins themselves, so we prohibit those; child porn would too, so we prohibit that. If we were hosting alqaedaunlimited.com or something, we would probably be forced to shut down the server, but since this would destroy the contents, it's really no worse for a site operator than a permanent DoS attack. (we actually have no "shady" customers of any kind, since they would tend to just use a cheap server somewhere with a stolen credit card or something, or keep their servers on their own premises -- also, they tend to use consumer services, which we don't offer.)

    As for a betting pool on HavenCo/Sealand's survival, this is a great idea. I'd suggest using a system like ideosphere if you're not interested in doing it for money; otherwise, I'd be happy to host such a service :) Would need to come up with precisely measurable conditions, specify a judge, etc. I suppose I already have a pretty large bet down in favor of "will survive 10+ years".

    We're mostly using Appro 1124i servers (good quality 1U), although we've got a fair amount of Sun and some other stuff. I am looking at blades, and it might be a way to offer a USD 300-500 low-end server, with fully metered bandwidth (such that if you max out the server, it costs you more than a 1U, but for a small site, it's cheaper).

    One of the other 2002-2003 projects is bringing in a BIG pipe so our bandwidth cost drops to US carrier prices, + $50/Mbps or so. (Right now, we have 25-50% capacity utlization, selling 256Kbps to each customer, with very little oversell; however, our cost on the bandwidth we do have is pretty high per megabit, so bandwidth is actually a loss for us.) We could then host huge data archives, porn sites, streaming audio and video (non-multicast, a bunch of unicast streams), news servers, etc. The main thing I need to do for that is get 500-750 Mbps of customers signed up ahead of time for the link; it should be about 4 x 10 Gbps initial link capacity, so you guess what tech it is :) Total cost for that is probably about USD 1-2m, but we don't want to kill our short term cashflow to do it, so we might have to wait a while, unless we get extra funds from investment or customers for the service.

    HavenCo + infinite bandwidth would be really exciting -- the tax and physical security advantages alone would be enough to make moving servers out there worthwhile, if the price is the same as anywhere else.
  • I'm baffled by the occasional references to Sealand and its failed claim to "haven" status. Every court case brought has established that Sealand is not recognized as an independent nation, and residents are not exempt from taxes, laws, etc. of other nations (especially Britain).

    My understanding is that anyone foolish enough to "reside" on the platform is pretty much stuck with all the obligations of the nation where they have citizenship (e.g. US citizens can't renounce citizenship by moving there, and still owe taxes and can get hauled into court in the USA).

    At the same time, the typical protections of a government are not available -- I don't think the British government accepts any duty to defend or rescue,

    In addition, since Sealand is not recognized by any internation body as a "nation," the British or US or any other government seeking to put a "Sealand resident" on trial could probably decide to swoop in with a helicopter and assault team and remove that person. A recent US court case found that it was illegal for DEA agents to swoop into Mexico and kidnap a Mexican national for trial here, but the case rested on the sovereign rights of Mexico as a nation. (Mr. Noriega used the same argument but failed.)

    This is one of those situations that doesn't even come close to being a "close case."

  • Artificial islands dont (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2002 @02:05AM (#3854730) Homepage
    1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 60 (8):
    • Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf. As a compromise in the balance of granting artificial structures some kind of adjacent jurisdiction, and that attribution of a territorial sea would mean a unjustified encroachment of the High Seas, the artificial structures were granted safety zones with the maximum reach of 500 metres. These zones are to be publicised, and all ships must respect them, but these zones are in no sense territorial sea.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close