Slashdot Mirror
HavenCo Doing Well
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.
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)
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
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.
Encryption is only as good as:
(a) the implementation, and
(b) the ability of the person who knows the passwords to withstand interrigation.
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).
"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.
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Why don't they have a TLD?
Anyone know?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
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).
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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."
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California