Slashdot Mirror

I'm not saying that gambling and money-laundering are immoral, but they aren't on the pure altruistic level of free speech, either. Then again, Havenco makes no bones about being a for-profit company... look at those rates!

Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product

Given that:

• [ A ] HavenCo is explicitly designed for regulatory arbitrage
• [ B ] Sealand was chosen by HavenCo specifically for :
  • [ i ] theoretical sovreignty
  • [ ii ] relative advantages for physical security
• [ C ] HavenCo is a commercial venture
• [ D ] HavenCo is also a political statement
• [ E ] Many countries (including USA, UK, France, Russia, and China) have all acted aggressively to prevent regulatory arbitrage (ie, double tax treaties, etc)

Then:

• [ 1 ] What precautions have been taken to ensure that HavenCo physical assets and human resources will be protected from predatory legal and/or physical assault?
• [ 2 ] Have any "pro-active" plans to co-opt national intelligence agencies, to prevent possible destruction of HavenCo physical and human assets (ie, developing a relationship with the CIA so that the NSA doesn't call "national defense" and activate SEAL teams to neutralize a potential "national security risk")?
• [ 3 ] In the event that physical security is breached, and it becomes necessary to incinerate the Data Vault, have "live tests" been done to verify that, indeed, the data is unrecoverable (uncompromisable)?

Given that:

• [ A ] HavenCo is explicitly designed for regulatory arbitrage
• [ B ] Sealand was chosen by HavenCo specifically for :
  • [ i ] theoretical sovreignty
  • [ ii ] relative advantages for physical security
• [ C ] HavenCo is a commercial venture
• [ D ] HavenCo is also a political statement
• [ E ] Many countries (including USA, UK, France, Russia, and China) have all acted aggressively to prevent regulatory arbitrage (ie, double tax treaties, etc)

Then:

• [ 1 ] What precautions have been taken to ensure that HavenCo physical assets and human resources will be protected from predatory legal and/or physical assault?
• [ 2 ] Have any "pro-active" plans to co-opt national intelligence agencies, to prevent possible destruction of HavenCo physical and human assets (ie, developing a relationship with the CIA so that the NSA doesn't call "national defense" and activate SEAL teams to neutralize a potential "national security risk")?
• [ 3 ] In the event that physical security is breached, and it becomes necessary to incinerate the Data Vault, have "live tests" been done to verify that, indeed, the data is unrecoverable (uncompromisable)?

Given that:

• [ A ] HavenCo is explicitly designed for regulatory arbitrage
• [ B ] Sealand was chosen by HavenCo specifically for :
  • [ i ] theoretical sovreignty
  • [ ii ] relative advantages for physical security
• [ C ] HavenCo is a commercial venture
• [ D ] HavenCo is also a political statement
• [ E ] Many countries (including USA, UK, France, Russia, and China) have all acted aggressively to prevent regulatory arbitrage (ie, double tax treaties, etc)

Then:

• [ 1 ] What precautions have been taken to ensure that HavenCo physical assets and human resources will be protected from predatory legal and/or physical assault?
• [ 2 ] Have any "pro-active" plans to co-opt national intelligence agencies, to prevent possible destruction of HavenCo physical and human assets (ie, developing a relationship with the CIA so that the NSA doesn't call "national defense" and activate SEAL teams to neutralize a potential "national security risk")?
• [ 3 ] In the event that physical security is breached, and it becomes necessary to incinerate the Data Vault, have "live tests" been done to verify that, indeed, the data is unrecoverable (uncompromisable)?

Given that:

• [ A ] HavenCo is explicitly designed for regulatory arbitrage
• [ B ] Sealand was chosen by HavenCo specifically for :
  • [ i ] theoretical sovreignty
  • [ ii ] relative advantages for physical security
• [ C ] HavenCo is a commercial venture
• [ D ] HavenCo is also a political statement
• [ E ] Many countries (including USA, UK, France, Russia, and China) have all acted aggressively to prevent regulatory arbitrage (ie, double tax treaties, etc)

Then:

• [ 1 ] What precautions have been taken to ensure that HavenCo physical assets and human resources will be protected from predatory legal and/or physical assault?
• [ 2 ] Have any "pro-active" plans to co-opt national intelligence agencies, to prevent possible destruction of HavenCo physical and human assets (ie, developing a relationship with the CIA so that the NSA doesn't call "national defense" and activate SEAL teams to neutralize a potential "national security risk")?
• [ 3 ] In the event that physical security is breached, and it becomes necessary to incinerate the Data Vault, have "live tests" been done to verify that, indeed, the data is unrecoverable (uncompromisable)?

Given that:

• [ A ] HavenCo is explicitly designed for regulatory arbitrage
• [ B ] Sealand was chosen by HavenCo specifically for :
  • [ i ] theoretical sovreignty
  • [ ii ] relative advantages for physical security
• [ C ] HavenCo is a commercial venture
• [ D ] HavenCo is also a political statement
• [ E ] Many countries (including USA, UK, France, Russia, and China) have all acted aggressively to prevent regulatory arbitrage (ie, double tax treaties, etc)

Then:

• [ 1 ] What precautions have been taken to ensure that HavenCo physical assets and human resources will be protected from predatory legal and/or physical assault?
• [ 2 ] Have any "pro-active" plans to co-opt national intelligence agencies, to prevent possible destruction of HavenCo physical and human assets (ie, developing a relationship with the CIA so that the NSA doesn't call "national defense" and activate SEAL teams to neutralize a potential "national security risk")?
• [ 3 ] In the event that physical security is breached, and it becomes necessary to incinerate the Data Vault, have "live tests" been done to verify that, indeed, the data is unrecoverable (uncompromisable)?

Given that:

• [ A ] HavenCo is explicitly designed for regulatory arbitrage
• [ B ] Sealand was chosen by HavenCo specifically for :
  • [ i ] theoretical sovreignty
  • [ ii ] relative advantages for physical security
• [ C ] HavenCo is a commercial venture
• [ D ] HavenCo is also a political statement
• [ E ] Many countries (including USA, UK, France, Russia, and China) have all acted aggressively to prevent regulatory arbitrage (ie, double tax treaties, etc)

Then:

• [ 1 ] What precautions have been taken to ensure that HavenCo physical assets and human resources will be protected from predatory legal and/or physical assault?
• [ 2 ] Have any "pro-active" plans to co-opt national intelligence agencies, to prevent possible destruction of HavenCo physical and human assets (ie, developing a relationship with the CIA so that the NSA doesn't call "national defense" and activate SEAL teams to neutralize a potential "national security risk")?
• [ 3 ] In the event that physical security is breached, and it becomes necessary to incinerate the Data Vault, have "live tests" been done to verify that, indeed, the data is unrecoverable (uncompromisable)?

Given that:

• [ A ] HavenCo is explicitly designed for regulatory arbitrage
• [ B ] Sealand was chosen by HavenCo specifically for :
  • [ i ] theoretical sovreignty
  • [ ii ] relative advantages for physical security
• [ C ] HavenCo is a commercial venture
• [ D ] HavenCo is also a political statement
• [ E ] Many countries (including USA, UK, France, Russia, and China) have all acted aggressively to prevent regulatory arbitrage (ie, double tax treaties, etc)

Then:

• [ 1 ] What precautions have been taken to ensure that HavenCo physical assets and human resources will be protected from predatory legal and/or physical assault?
• [ 2 ] Have any "pro-active" plans to co-opt national intelligence agencies, to prevent possible destruction of HavenCo physical and human assets (ie, developing a relationship with the CIA so that the NSA doesn't call "national defense" and activate SEAL teams to neutralize a potential "national security risk")?
• [ 3 ] In the event that physical security is breached, and it becomes necessary to incinerate the Data Vault, have "live tests" been done to verify that, indeed, the data is unrecoverable (uncompromisable)?

In your FAQ you claim to stand for "unfettered individual freedom" and I absolutely applaud that. In your acceptable use policy, you forbid practices that are illegal in the jurisdiction of the originating server. Sealand, of course, can have any laws the one or few people in charge want for it. Having said this, how do you guarantee that a principality that can change its laws on a whim and with no notice will maintain the spirit of "unfettered individual freedom?" I ask this especially in light of the fact that you also have an open-ended policy: "Unacceptable publications include, but are not limited to...". This means that your storage facility (which reserves the right to "police or monitor" network use but claims it "will not necessarily") can decide that it doesn't like what someone is doing with their server hosted at HavenCo, monitor their traffic for a while, deem it illegal, and then shut them down- and all of this without notice. What guarantees do you plan to give your clients that their data will be safe, that they will be ensured anonymity, that they will not be discriminated against because of content, and that their contracts are valid in a "principality" with a whimsical at best legal system?
I really like this idea and I want it to work. At the moment, however, your facility seems less secure and less free of the threat of content discrimination than it would be under the jurisdiction of many other countries. Other countries have more than one person deciding what's "acceptable;" a redundant system where what is "unacceptable" can be argued among many of the people it affects. I know that the idea is that you will restrict very little, but can you ensure that this idea will not change?

In your FAQ you claim to stand for "unfettered individual freedom" and I absolutely applaud that. In your acceptable use policy, you forbid practices that are illegal in the jurisdiction of the originating server. Sealand, of course, can have any laws the one or few people in charge want for it. Having said this, how do you guarantee that a principality that can change its laws on a whim and with no notice will maintain the spirit of "unfettered individual freedom?" I ask this especially in light of the fact that you also have an open-ended policy: "Unacceptable publications include, but are not limited to...". This means that your storage facility (which reserves the right to "police or monitor" network use but claims it "will not necessarily") can decide that it doesn't like what someone is doing with their server hosted at HavenCo, monitor their traffic for a while, deem it illegal, and then shut them down- and all of this without notice. What guarantees do you plan to give your clients that their data will be safe, that they will be ensured anonymity, that they will not be discriminated against because of content, and that their contracts are valid in a "principality" with a whimsical at best legal system?
I really like this idea and I want it to work. At the moment, however, your facility seems less secure and less free of the threat of content discrimination than it would be under the jurisdiction of many other countries. Other countries have more than one person deciding what's "acceptable;" a redundant system where what is "unacceptable" can be argued among many of the people it affects. I know that the idea is that you will restrict very little, but can you ensure that this idea will not change?

Two questions:
1.) How much luck have you had on that front? Are there any other smallish countries that are looking to Sealand as an example of How to make it in the technical age?
2.) Would you be willing to consider stepping back from the level of security exhibited in the Sealand facility, or compromising the level of freedom allowed by that country, if it meant that you could get access to another principality/new customers.

Those questions asked, I'd like to compliment you on the whole concept. Seeing Kinakuta come to life is heartening.

how do you justify the fact that people are going to hold illegal data in your facility in the name of free speech?

After reading your TOS I have become rather curious in regards to the following cluase:

Unacceptable publications include, but are not limited to:

1. Material that is ruled unlawful in the jurisdiction of the originating server (Such as child pornography, in the case of our flagship Sealand datacenter)

In the case of the Sealand datacenter, what are some of the limitations?

Please note that in the following examples I am not equating one example with any other or implying that any of the following should be censored; rather they are examples of what I would consider sticky wickets when running a "data haven" and wonder how such things will be handled.

Imagine the following:

I am a rabid anti-choice activist in the United States. I wish to post a site with a hit list of doctors performing abortions in the United States. After each "accident" I wish to mark them with a big red X. I publish detailed information on how to find each of these doctors.

Is this site permitted?

I am a hacker who wants to play DVDs on my Linux box and I want to use free software. I want to place source code on my website. The United States says this violates some stupid law and some annoying people object.

Is this site permitted?

I am a devote Iron Chef fan and Fuji TV has just sent me a cease and desist order. I wish to move my materials to Sealand.

Is this site permitted?

I am a regular guy in the UK creating a website about my daily life. Some people don't like the way I talk about them and my site is pulled.

Is this site permitted?

Will you allow sites advocating the overthrow of rival goverments, challenged uses of intellectual property, bomb making instructions, and other information that will get other nation-states panties in a twist?

Let's say that you do manage to completely secure your clients' hardware and data. Do you think you can also completely obscure the fact that said client is doing business with HavenCo?

If so, may we have more details on how?

If not, do you think that certain governments will make it a crime to simply do business with Sealand? I understand your explanation that you're not undermining the authority of other governments -- but you are undermining their power to legislate away certain activities to which they object, and I imagine they won't like that. In a world which places little value on a citizen's soveriegnty against hir government, there would be few reprucussions to (say) the U.S. making it illegal to purchase your services, but it would put a big dent in your ability to do business.

- Michael Cohn

Why don't people read the available info, before wasting questions asking stuff that is easy to find out, and doesn't require their CTO?

Oh well people are just lazy I guess.

Some History:In the late sixties Roy Bates and his family occupied one of the forts and declared himself a soverign nation. This was upheld in British Court and the long bizarre history began. The tiny nation was attacked and captured by a German businessman and friends for several weeks until Roy could put a crew together to retake it by rappeling from helicopters. (There were no known fatalities from these actions.) Here are some fun links to learn more:

• The New York Times Article that started it all.
• What appears to be the official webisite:http://www.sealandgov.com/index.html
• The HavenCo homepage: http://www.havenco.com/
• A very nice article about the off-shore radio stations in England during the 1960's. http://fre\espace.virg in.net/line.design/forts/radioforts.htm. This includes a nice picture of the fort being installed: http://freespace.virgin .net/line.design/forts/sea_forts.htm.
• Some publicity shots of Sealand from their old (archived) website. http://www.fruitsofthese a.demon.co.uk/sealand/gallery.html.
• A Guardian Article about Sealand.
• A Sunday Telegraph Article.
• Dorothy Lerda at The National Geographic answers a question about Sealand. (Notice that she has what is likely to be the web address of the imposters responsible for selling passports.)
• A brief history of the forts with pictures and diagrams.

No. We have very few limitations of the nature of business our customers are allowed to conduct. 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. Our advanced technical anti-spam and anti-attack techniques will prevent all customers from using our services for this purpose, and we will respond promptly to any complaints of spam.

So, if you do anything to threaten their network connectivity, like make data available there that the upstream (or someone paying the upstream) finds objectionable, *POOF*, you are gone.

Good idea, poor implementation until they can "hide" their network connectivity.

And if you don't agree,

Maintaining the physical security of the Sealand fortress and HavenCo facility is of utmost importance to our success. Our business, personal reputations and financial bottom line, and that of all our customers, could be compromised in the event that a careless or malicious entity were to ship equipment to us that was altered to include a bomb or eavesdropping device. We don't like these precautions any more than you do, but this is the reality that we face in an increasily hostile world.

Although I agree thay phsical security as well as systems integrity is paramount in todays electronic environment. Taking measures this stiff is along the lines of James Bond films. These folks won't even let you bring in your own hardware. So is it a true COLO? From perusing the related HavenCo pages it appears that along with secure services, they also have quite a lockdown on content provided as well as a strong hold on how the hosted sites are run. I could see needing a facility like this to house some business critical warehousing, but that would be about it. I think the leasing arrangements and the spylike security will also come with a huge pricetag. If you spend all thismoney and house your site there, you still can't see or visit the facilities. Seems a bit paranoid to me.