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.

Comments

Sealand

[Anonymous Coward]

Just incase anyone is interested in Sealand

http://www.sealandgov.com/

Re:Sealand

[throwaway18]

Ok, I can karma whore too, Ryan Lackey, the sealand CTO has a couple of pictures on his home page He's a cool geezer. He has shown up at london 2600 and DNScon in the past.

Ashcroft

[dattaway]

If they are out of control of the US Government, will be they labled as terrorists and bombed?

Re:Ashcroft

[Zach`]

It was a group of Dutch and German businessmen who were upset because the King of Sealand had refused a business deal they had proposed. They assaulted the island while the King was away and took the Prince (the King's son, obviously) hostage. Eventually the King returned and led a counter-assault on the island with the assistance of several friends. They held the businessmen as prisoners of war for several weeks and only released the German after an envoy from the German government was sent to negotiate. This was basically de facto recognition of Sealand's soveriegnty, and is highly touted in their historical records.

By the way, for my final project for AP Speech class I did a 40 minute presentation on Sealand from the viewpoints of 5 different (well 6 including the introduction) characters. It was pretty awesome. I'd post it online if I wasn't afraid of someone totally ripping it off.

Re:Ashcroft

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So what? If the teacher isn't smart enough, or doesn't care enough, to know the difference between one of their pupil's own work and something plagarized, then the kid isn't getting a good education anyway, plagarisim or not. In the long run, it will only hurt the plagarizer anyway.

Re:Ashcroft

[treat]

In the long run, it will only hurt the plagarizer anyway.

Do you really, honestly, believe that "cheaters are only cheating themselves"? I find it hard to believe that someone could genuinely be so ignorant as to make such a statement. The US public school system is so completely corrupt that it serves in no way to educate the students. Since cheating can not possibly have an impact on the education a student receives, it will only affect grades. Better grades are important if someone wishes to go to college in order to be able to get easy semi-menial jobs on the basis of having a degree and no other qualifications.

Re:Ashcroft

[philovivero]

By the way, for my final project for AP Speech class I did a 40 minute presentation on Sealand from the viewpoints of 5 different (well 6 including the introduction) characters. It was pretty awesome. I'd post it online if I wasn't afraid of someone totally ripping it off.

I had a project just like this.

I trolled^Wtold my teacher: "Hey, my 40-minute speech project is just awesome! But I can't present it, because it's intellectual property."

I never understood her hostility.

Re:Ashcroft

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Having gone through the system with some cheaters - even helped them cheat in some cases, I see them struggling in the real world today. They've got poor attention skills, are unable to buckle down and work hard when the time calls for it and haven't been successful at any job that requires more than just talking the talk.

So yes, based on my experience, I believe that high-school and probably college level cheaters are cheating themselves. Yes, if the teacher is grading on a curve then there is short term hurt for honest students too. But that hurt builds character which is just as useful in the real world as a good work ethic. At least that's one of the major reasons I attribute to my being fully employed at pre-dot-bomb rates while my peers who did cheat are on the dole.

Re:Ashcroft

[Miska]

Doesn't seem if bombing Sealand will be necessary to secure cooperation.

from the Sealand.gov site
(http://www.sealandgov.org/notices/pn01101.html)


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.

Re:Ashcroft

[DavidTC]

The reason it was so interesting was that they weren't charged with kidnapping by the British government, like you would normally be if you attempted to 'arrest' people, but the British government ignored them and the German government entered negotiations with them, without the British government in sight.

And the German government didn't get permission from the British government before doing this, either. Germany de facto recognized Sealand as a sovereign nation by its actions. Nations do not enter other nations and negotiation with kidnappers in said nations, they alert the police and work from there.

I don't know why it's at issue, anyway. Sealand has fired on British ships that strayed too close without permission, and they've gotten away with that, too, which pretty much trashes any concept they aren't a real nation. If they aren't a nation, they've done enough 'illegal' things to get arrested several times over. And, yes, the British government could take them down if they wanted, all they have are a few lousy anti-aircraft guns, personal arms, and a helicopter or two. The fact the British government 'lets' they stay there indication they know it would be a violation of international law for them to attack them, because they actually are a sovereign nation according to all internation rules.

Re:Ashcroft

[gorilla]

They've got poor attention skills, are unable to buckle down and work hard when the time calls for it and haven't been successful at any job that requires more than just talking the talk.

So what you're saying is that they've become managers?

If they get too successful

[stoolpigeon]

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)

.

Re:If they get too successful

[DustMagnet]

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.

Re:If they get too successful

[stoolpigeon]

I love the idea of data havens, but how can you protect one.

You put it on the moon that's how. And if the govt. gives you grief you wrap big chunks of rock in steal jackets- launch them w/a magnetic catapult and drop them on the earth. You just keep that up until the earth gives in and you have your freedom as a sovereign planet.

really it's a no brainer.

Re:If they get too successful

[shren]

Anyone want to tell me what the minimum ping time to the moon is based on the speed of light?

Re:If they get too successful

[shren]

So, no transplanetary quake. Thanks.

More importantly

[Subcarrier]

How does the taxing compare to Switzerland or Monaco?

Re:More importantly

[Max von H.]

It's only a few Swiss states (Schwytz being the top one) that have little to no income tax. If you live in Geneva, you'll pay hefty tax, especially if you're single.

Monaco (Monte Carlo) is a principality administered and protected by France so French aristocrats (and terrorists, politics and superstars) can evade their respective tax systems. Monaco doesn't cooperate with justice, whereas Switzerland does.

Monaco is a safe haven for the scum of the planet, nothing more. It's a bank safe. At least, Switzerland is a real country with elected officials, while Monaco is run by the Grimaldi family.

Cheers,

more info

[cr@ckwhore]

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.

Re:more info

[RollingThunder]

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

[chill]

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.

Re:more info

[stefanlasiewski]

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

[chill]

Sounds like they were trying out the IP Over Avian Carrier backup system. :-)

Re:more info

[raju1kabir]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.
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.

Re:more info

[rdl]

There were actually 200-300 soldiers (sailors, actually...it was Royal Navy, although the Army had forts up the Thames).

They had 2 x 3.7" mounts, which require gun teams of maybe 20-30 people each (manually load ammo, etc.). They had some 40mm bofors (2 or 4) which require 5-10 per gun crew. They had radar, and some light AA (1" or .50) which require 2-5 each.

Plus, support, damage control, officers, cargo, medical, etc. Naval ships have always been oversupplied with people so they can continue fighting even with casualties -- compare a supertanker (crew of 30-50) and a carrier (crew of 5000)...not all of those people are needed for direct operations all the time.

I'm sure it sucked when there were 200-300 people here, but they did live here.

Re:more info

[raju1kabir]

Since the English legal system uses the Doctrine of Precedent (where a judges decision in a past case must be followed by other (lower) courts) and this case must have been seen in one of the highest courts in the land (probably Crown) then this is effectively a nationwide legal consensus.

I suggest you read a little more about how precedent works.

A pretrial finding of no jurisdiction is a procedural, not a substantive legal matter.

It has no more binding precedent value than if the judge had thrown the crown's case out due to the prosecutor showing up in a thong bikini.

Re:more info

[raju1kabir]

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.

Think what you will, but in actual fact the case was docketed in the local Essex court, like any other similar weapons charge resulting from actions taken in Essex would be. The same court hears burglaries, assaults, and the like.

Additionally, it was not the Navy they attacked, but lighthouse operators.

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.

There is no King. There is only a delusional old man. There were no prisoners of war; there was just a kidnapping pursuant to a struggle between groups of criminals - some in possession of Sealand and some not.

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.

This is flatly untrue. Do you have any evidence? (hint: Once again, citing theories from the sealandgov website is not "evidence")

Re:more info

[Anonymous DWord]

They've thought about it (from the talk at H2K2). The water's only ~30 feet deep around there. Until they have a growing population though, it's not really necessary.

Collecting Taxes

[Alien54]

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?

Re:Collecting Taxes

[FreeUser]

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, which is the first link that appears when you do a google search on the keyword "Sealand" (see the History section).

Re:Collecting Taxes

[Zeinfeld]

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).

Re:Collecting Taxes

[raju1kabir]

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

[Skyshadow]

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

[AndrewHowe]

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

[Apuleius]

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

Re:Pretending

[Skyshadow]

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

[Skyshadow]

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.

Re:Pretending

[JCCyC]

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

[AndrewHowe]

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!

Re:Pretending

[AndrewHowe]

Well, sure, but the US wouldn't attack Sealand. If it came to it, they would lean on the UK and we would sort it out. We are not gonna have you bastards owning sovereign territory just outside our waters, are we?

Re:Pretending

[Guppy06]

"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.

Re:Pretending

[neo]

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.

Re:Pretending

[AndrewHowe]

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

[Zeinfeld]

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.

Re:Pretending

[Zeinfeld]

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.

Re:Pretending

[AndrewHowe]

If Sealand was suspected of such a thing, what would happen?
Let's say the UK government sees Sealand as part of the UK. What they would then have to do is approach them through the UK court system. The UK courts would, I think, uphold the earlier ruling that Sealand is outside of their durisdiction (because it clearly is, under international law). Now, the UK government would have to talk to Sealand directly... And in so doing, recognise her sovereignty. I have no doubt that Sealand, under such circumstances, would do the right thing, as any other nation would. You will note that there are activities that they don't allow on their servers.

Re:Pretending

[Alex]

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 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

Re:Pretending

[Pollux]

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

[AndrewHowe]

The Falkland Islands were ours, and remain ours. We defended them against invasion by Argentina.

Re:Pretending

[AndrewHowe]

Yes, that is exactly what we did, and your point is?

Re:Pretending

[AndroidCat]

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 "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

[AndrewHowe]

Whatever, Anonymous dude... But the Falklanders felt British, and wanted to stay that way, and asked for our help. And if they ask for it again, we will shine up our arse-kicking boots and be on our way over.

Re:Pretending

[tybalt44]

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

[AndroidCat]

"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?

Re:Pretending

[AndroidCat]

*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.

Re:Pretending

[AndroidCat]

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.])

Re:Pretending

[AndrewHowe]

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.

Re:Pretending

[Zeinfeld]

The UK courts would, I think, uphold the earlier ruling that Sealand is outside of their durisdiction (because it clearly is, under international law).

International law explicity excludes territorial claims on the basis of man made platforms. Otherwise countries would be building them to claim mineral rights.

The English courts rulled that the platform was outside their jurisdiction. So is Glasgow, but that is certainly not recognized as an independent state. The ruling says nothing about the claims of the British crown which are considerably more extensive. Very little of the North Sea Oil is within the 3 mile or 12 mile territorial limit, but the UK claims sovereign rights with respect to the minerals.

The rulling of the English courts was based on the then law which set the territorial limit at 3 miles. It has since been expanded to 12 miles.

Re:Pretending

[raju1kabir]

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 (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).

Re:Pretending

[raju1kabir]

I wouldn't be so sure. If you check the history of Sealand [sealandgov.com] then you see that the residents have been extremely zealous about this place, firing warning shots at anyone getting close to the tower.

Plenty of people in the rural northwest of the USA are zealous about their land, firing warning shots at anyone who approaches. It doesn't make them princes of sovereign nations; it just makes them violent and dangerous crackpots.

This included some guys who had come to repair some buoy that was floating in the vicinity (called "units of British Navy" in the official Sealand history

Actually, the buoy repair work continues on schedule, as well as dredging immediately adjacent. From time to time the British coast guard equivalent escorts the people doing this work. As soon as there is sufficiently aggressive provocation that the level of escorting required becomes too expensive, the British will be on their way to disassembling HavenCo.

The crackpots are at least smart enough to know this, which is why the potshots have stopped (now they just fire them from their web site).

Re:Pretending

[raju1kabir]

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.

It is within their universally-recognized territorial waters.

Everyone who has a problem with Sealand comes to the UK government first (such as when the US followed a pirate radio operator there).

Re:Pretending

[Chris Burke]

Don't be so sure. Observed the nature of the platform? Outside of landing from a Blackhawk (out of the question, as then they'd clearly know you were there and have time to blow the machines and make some coffee), achieving the deck would be rather difficult. Doing so while taking fire from defenders more so. And don't foolishly assume that only special forces teams from any first-world country can contain special forces from a first-world country.

Besides, all they have to do is have enough time between detection of intruders and the end of the conflict to (presumably, but reasonably) turn a key, pop a lid, and hit a button. A door with a solid chair under the handle would provide all the time needed to thwart the special forces of the first world.

Re:Pretending

[AndroidCat]

Radio Caroline ass-kicking
On Saturday August 19th the unthinkable happened. The large Dutch vessel Volans with armed officials on board closed in on the Ross Revenge as did the British launch Landward.

By means of violence and force of numbers the Dutch took control of the ship and as chaos reigned, the disc jockeys relayed a blow by blow account of events to the astonished listeners. Then when the transmitters were silenced the Dutch stripped the ship of all broadcast equipment while the British attempted to interrogate the crew under threat of arrest. All this happened in International waters where the boarders had no official powers. In the early evening, Carolines British tender, posing as a press launch, reached the ship with some genuine journalists on board. The raiders immediately left taking with them all of the records, studios and transmitting equipment and leaving behind some vandalism and deliberate damage. They also left behind the British crew who refused to desert their ruined ship.

Country? Says whom, Sealand? So what.

Re:Pretending

[Malcontent]

No need to plant evidence. Eventually some muslim will open up a web site there defending palestenians or something and voila let the bombs fall.

Re:Pretending

[AndrewHowe]

I have read that, and it is very interesting. But what I said was correct. You can't unilaterally change international law. Boarding other ships and smashing them up is piracy. There's no problem with that unless you have to answer to your own country. The "powers" of which you speak were simply "please go and fuck up these radio stations while we look the other way"...
Radio Caroline and various others survived for so long precisely because they were considered to be in international waters and therefore out of the jurisdiction of the UK courts. They had enough problems of their own, their ships kept falling apart and sinking...

Re:Pretending

[Chris Burke]

Sure, but they'd still have time to hit the self-destruct button on the data center. :)

Re:Pretending

[jeremyp]

If you read the history of Sealand (which, by the way, probably has a slight propaganda bias), you'll see that the court - a provincial English one - merely declared that it (i.e. that particular court) was not competent to try that one particular case. The issue of whether Sealand is a sovereign nation has never been properly tested in a court. It would probably come down to "can a man made structure be described as land?"

In any case, it looks like the British authorities have decided to take the easy option and let things be. I imagine that every time a foreign nation approaches the British officials with some problem about Sealand and they redirect them to Sealand itself, they (the officials) must be pissing themselves with laughter. It's nice to see that our civil service still has some capacity for a sense of humour and doesn't just go in and step on Sealand.

There are some inconsistencies in Sealand's story. The incident with the German and Dutch businessmen does not constitute an act of war. If they had done the same thing in Britain to a member of our Royal Family they would have been arrested by the police and tried as criminals for unlawful imprisonment. We wouldn't have taken it as a declaration of war by the German/Dutch state.

If on the other hand the Prince of Sealand had shot and killed a British citizen, we could probably treat it as a criminal act or as an act of war. In either case a helicopter full of squaddies would be enough to end it.

BTW i doubt if the extension of our territorial waters had anything to do with Sealand - much more likely to be a European political thing.

Re:Pretending

[Pentagram]

If Sealand wasn't there to provide a "secure" data haven, MI5 would probably have to start their own.

How do you know they didn't?

Re:Pretending

[st0rmshad0w]

True, but there's another angle to this. Allowing Sealand to exist, essentially within UK territorial waters means no one can touch it without the UK's OK. So, if anyone (some UK intelligence service) wanted to run some cyber-ops off of Sealand-based equipment, then they would be blameless. Trace an intruder to Sealand, can't just roll up and grab the place, unless you want to take on the British navy. I don't know how this would work with any acceptable use policies and so forth, but an independant "nation" essentially within your own borders can be made into one hell of an asset.

Re:Pretending

[gorilla]

The Taliban was recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republic, however I'd say that offical recognization isn't terribly significant - it's all politics, which doesn't reflect the realities of the situation. Taiwan is probably offically recognized by about the same number of countries, but no-one would doubt that President Chen Shui-bian is the leader of the government.

Rabbani doesn't really have any more reason to be considered legitimate than any of the various power factions since the fall of Daoud's government sparked the civil war - including the Taliban - He wasn't democratically elected, and even his election to the president of the Islamic Council was only for a one year term, and never did he truely control the whole country.

Since the start of the civil war, it's been a continous war between different ethnic groups, who gain and loose control over parts of the country. Whoever happens to control the most, claims it all.

Re:Pretending

[ErikZ]

Not as simple as you'd like it to be?

Boil water, vent steam to a cool container which will condense it back to water.

Oooooo. That's rough! How can they possibly master such a difficult proccess?

From a desalination website:

"The second method is distillation where seawater is heated to produce steam, which is then condensed to produce water with a low salt concentration and few of the other impurities contained in the original water."

Re:Pretending

[MikeFM]

To some extent what you say is true but you don't seem to take into account significance. Right now data havens such as this have very little significance meaning that nobody cares enough to really challenge them. I think sovereign status is a combination of significance and a show of power. If you're significant enough to declare war on that is a big sign of a sovereign power. If you can at least put up a fight that is another sign. You can be a government in exile and still to some extent be soverign and in the case of a data haven you don't really even need land. As long as you keep serving your data you are never in exile.

Re:Pretending

[ErikZ]

Gee, with some wire and some magnets, a pole and anything that floated, they could generate plenty of power from the waves.

Or paint a box black, fill it with water and cover it over with glass and put it outside. Steam! Woo!

You said that desalination was HARD. Not that cutting off the power supply would make living there impossible. Stick with your original arguments and learn to loose gracefully.

Or learn how to make your point.

Re:Pretending

[ShavenYak]

Well, yes, with a bit of ingenuity they could rig something up like you suggest. Given only the resources they would have, it's questionable whether they could supply enough fresh water that way to meet all their needs.

I apologize for giving the impression that I was saying desalination was HARD. Obviously, it's not that hard; it's done every day. But it isn't so trivial that a half-dozen guys stranded in the middle of the sea could bet their lives on getting it done. If it were that easy, there would never be a need for water rationing in California. Unless maybe they run out of power. ;)

About making my point... my original post was to someone who said that "ignoring the salt, they have all the water they need". My point was you can't "ignore" the salt, and there's work involved to get rid of it. Describing how to deal with it is not the same as ignoring it.

Perhaps I would have done better just to reply with the old familiar Coleridge quote: "Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink."

no servers may have to do with space/shipping

[peterdaly]

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

well this sounds fun

[edrugtrader]

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

Nation status seems very clear...

[automatic_jack]

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 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.

Re:Nation status seems very clear...

[Zeinfeld]

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.

A nice HavenCo / Sealand background article...

[MavEtJu]

... was published in Wired two years ago.

Yo-ho-ho

[unicron]

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.

They might be able to do some damage

[Sanity]

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).

Re:They might be able to do some damage

[Chris Burke]

Look, the whole point of a data haven is being able to keep data that would get you in trouble in another country, right?

If you blow it up before the other country can grab it, then they don't have it and it can't hurt you, can it? That is essentially the promise of HavenCo; that is the point.

The point of being on a "sovereign island" with a defence force is to put up a little more barrier to this eventuality. If they were in, say, downtown London, then the Doomsday Scenario would transpire a day or two after they started hosting something the British government didn't like and a couple cars with flashy lights came 'round.

Re:They might be able to do some damage

[sql*kitten]

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).

No need for anything as melodramatic as an assault by SAS or SBS teams. A frigate could reduce Sealand to rubble less than a minute without ever coming in range of anything Sealand residents might have to shoot back with, unless they've managed to get hold of Exocet missiles. I think in practice Sealand would be treated as a ship for the purposes of law enforcement - I seem to remember there was once a pirate radio station based on a ship in the North Sea, and they were shut down. And I don't think even a British court can give anyone the right to defend themselves from the British government!

Censorship

[anthony_dipierro]

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

Here's a list of some companies making money out of beating censorship.

Re:Really secure?

[Bogatyr]

That seems more plausible to me than this Sealand thingy.
Plausible? Cryptonomicon was a novel. Sealand is a real and physical creation. I acknowledge your point the datahaven in Cryptonomicon has potentially longer-term chances for survival, but it's simply not real, in that you can't store your data in the fictional underground datahaven. Sealand is real in that they will take your money and host your data. I forget which writer commented works of fiction have to be more plausible than real life, even if they might contain fantastical elements. l

So why no Napster server on Sealand?

[vkg]

Screw all of this decentralized indexing nonsense: just put the napster server on there, but still let the files live where they will.

Re:So why no Napster server on Sealand?

[gmhowell]

Probably just money. I'm sure hosting on Sealand ain't cheap.

my favorite part

[phriedom]

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.

Don't expect Sealand to defend your copyright.

[stonedown]

"I'd post it online if I wasn't afraid of someone totally ripping it off."

Yeah, especially someone hosted by Sealand. ;-)

"Sealand currently has no regulations regarding copyright, patents, ..."

Protection?

[hendridm]

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?

Sounds good, but...

[jpellino]

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.

Re:Except...

[FreeUser]

Without a payment source, you're going to see a lot of online gambling (both legit, and the scam artists) disappear. That's going to cut into HavenCo's bottom line, since I doubt they get much money from the exiled Tibetan Government.

I have never used paypal, and I do not know anyone who has. It is far easier to use an "internet friendly" credit card, with throw-away numbers (unique numbers for each purchase, use 'em up like you would a coupon book), or even a traditional credit card, for online purchases. As someone who has made a great number of online purchases, and who knows a couple of dozen other people who have likewise, I would be surprised if paypal accounts for any significant percentage of gambling, or other, online purchases.

I would imagine the vast majority of people prefer using a credit card, which has a liability limit of $50, rather than using a service that taps directly into their checkbook, where the customer enjoys no limitation on the amount of financial damange they can suffer due to fraud or theft.

All that aside, if their really is a demand for paypal-esque services that include such adult fun as gambling, marital aid purchases, pr0n, etc. I'm sure a competing service will arise and wipe the floor with eBay-PayPal.

Re:Proof of Al-Queda

[AndrewHowe]

Actually, yes, I did miss those, although I did see one where they seemed to be pretty happy about it.

Offshore Internet radio?

[zaren]

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...

Re:Offshore Internet radio?

[BrookHarty]

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!

Huh?

[Skevin]

> Resorting to violence a PR blunder?
> Not if you belong to the Al-Quaeda.

Al-Quaeda has good PR?
Was it the donations to Charity? The Homeless Shelters? Their ground breaking research on Global Warming?
Their spin doctors must suck because most news sites portray them in a bad light.

> If this island ever became critical enough,
> it would become a major target of terrorism

Yeah, they could covertly plant a bomb while blending in as a tourist-... excuse me, *the* tourist, and not single one of the four residents of Sealand would find out until it was too late!
Otherwise, I guess they could sneak up on HavenCo just like they did on the USS Cole, and all four HavenCo employees would never see the rowboat coming, never mind the fact that the rowboat must have been launched from the nearest shore 12 miles away. ["Abdul, I can't set the charge - my arms are too tired!"]
However, the effort would be worth it: imagine the shock of horror in our hearts when we discover that the attack upon the second smallest country in the world has resulted in a whopping 4 casualties!

I really think you're on to something here.

Solomon

Why no .sea?

[namespan]

Why don't they have a TLD?

Anyone know?

Re:Why no .sea?

[raju1kabir]

Why don't they have a TLD?

For the ISO to assign you a TLD, you have to be a real country, or at least a colony with the potential for eventual independence.

Sealand doesn't have a TLD for the same reason that I'm not assigned a TLD every time I go swimming on the New Jersey shore.

Re:Net connection

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

You just buy the really BIG spool of Cat5...

They have submarine cables just like any other island, and I think a satellite connection for emergency backup.

Tim

Tax Free !!!

[gelfling]

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.

Re:Check it.

[dillon_rinker]

As is .sl.

That gives me an idea....

Sierra Leone
American Samoa
Dominican Republic
Trinidad and Tobago

Not a bad approximation. =)

Update & Misc.

[rdl]

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.

Re:Update & Misc.

[rdl]

We get lots of publicity and wait for people to mail us. We also have resellers in key industries like gaming, but mainly we have smaller customers and consultants who send referrals. Lots of regular gaming, payment systems, etc. companies use our service.

It's mainly word of mouth; we don't really actively try to sell or market.

I'd be happy to have a p2p system as a customer, but the best ones, like MNet, are the ones which have the least need for centralized servers in the first place.

Re:Update & Misc.

[shren]

Does anyone who has server space on Sealand sell unix shell access?

Re:Proof of Al-Queda

[Malcontent]

The video I saw offered no admitance of proof. They did seem to enjoy it though. Of course I don't speak arabic and am relying on a translation done by the US govt. I am sure the US govt would never actually lie about anything or fake a video or anything like that so I am sure the translation and the video tape are 100% legit and accurate.

No Question about legal status of SeaLand/HavenCo

[markwelch]

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

[Animats]

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.

Re:Artificial islands dont

[rdl]

Indeed, that is the 1982 convention.

Sealand was declared in 1967.

Re:Switzer- not Sealand

[Slashamatic]

Um it only works if the servers are compliant with Swiss laws. Swiss banking secrecy is no longer 100% and may be perforated by a determine enough state seeking help with, for example, the funding of terrorism, drugs or whatever. Note that the stated reason is essentially an excuse. If good reason can be found, information may be disclosed to even if there is no terrorist or drugs connection involved.

Re: Why no ccTLD for SeaLand? (.sea?)

[markwelch]

Until you asked, I had believed ccTLDs were only granted to nations that are recognized by some other government or international body (hence Cuba gets a ccTLD despite lack of US government recognition). But it turns out that once again, I was wrong, sort of: top-level domains are available for any two-letter country code recognized under ISO 3166 (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166m a/index.html).

Sealand is not on the list (which can be viewed at http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma /02iso-3166-code-lists/list-en1.html).

ISO 3166 is the "authority" because that's what IANA decided (thus shifting the burden of recognizing nations to another standards-organization). See http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld.htm (where you'll find a link to IANA's decision enabling the .ps ccTLD for the Palestinian Territory). See also http://www.caslon.com.au/domainsprofile.htm

Re:Artificial islands don't make a country

[Animats]

See above. This has come up before, and it's been settled by international agreement. Only natural islands that are above the water at high tide count as territory. Otherwise, countries could expand their sea territory by building chains of oil platforms.

Now if Sealand had a natural island, unclaimed by another country, things would be different.

See this history of offshore pirate radio from the 1960s. It didn't work last time.

How do you protect one.

[phriedom]

Since Sealand is within the territorial waters of the UK (while also claiming an overlaping area that would give them rights to the sea lanes) I imagine that the UK would not stand by and allow a foreign power to "invade", nor a private act of piracy. Therefore the only threat of "invasion" comes from the UK itself, which has already recognized that they have no legal jurisdiction there.

Since Sealand fairly immune to legal (and therefore military matters), the other point of attack would be political, by which I mean some kind of embargo or something that makes running their business difficult. As long as Sealand doesn't do anything really bad that would make the general public of the UK see them as the bad guy, then I don't think any politician or party is going to want to be the one going after the little guy, doing the bidding of big business. Its just not the kind of thing that gets you votes. Plus, although Sealand doesn't pay taxes to the UK, they presumabley buy bandwidth and supplies from the UK, therefore they pump foreign money into the UK economy, so the UK gains something from their existance. Sealand's bigger threat is to be a target for the Real Time Black List or some such, which is why they won't host anything they think will put their business in danger.

Sealand may not be able to flout all laws and conventions with impunity, but they are immune to subpoena, and have a tax advantage, which makes them something special.

Re:Close Up Photos

[rdl]

Those pics were taken by the reporter for Wired who visited in March 2000; also my first visit to Sealand. This was before we completely rebuilt the infrastructure and interior.

The interior of Sealand now is pretty much the same as a regular commercial or light industrial building anywhere else. Carpet in the bedrooms and living room, even.

Re:Za hosts their ccTLD dns servers on sealand

[rdl]

Please provide a reference for this. I would be very interested.

As far as I can tell, some lame ZA reporter reported this story without doing any research whatsoever (or simply fabricating it entirely), assuming that since Sealand is far away, no one would ever check the facts.

9:13@atreides:~% whois =ZA

Domain Name: ZA
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: APIES.FRD.AC.ZA
Name Server: AUTH00.NS.UU.NET
Name Server: HIPPO.RU.AC.ZA
Name Server: MUNNARI.OZ.AU
Name Server: NS.RIPE.NET
Name Server: RAIN.PSG.COM
Name Server: UCTHPX.UCT.AC.ZA
Name Server: NS-EXT.VIX.COM
Name Server: FLAG.EP.NET
Updated Date: 06-jun-2002

Feel free to resolve on those nameservers; AFAIK none is hosted on Sealand.

How to protect yourselves

[davecl]

Another route to protection is financial... Take the Swiss. They have everyone's money, so if you attack them, they burn your money. Simple really!

Re:What I'd like to see hosted there

[rdl]

http://decss.venona.com/

I host DeCSS on Sealand. It was reported in New Scientist. It had all of...8 hits?

Re:Reminds me of Cryptonomicon

[MemeRot]

I finished Cryptonomicon about 2 weeks before HavenCo made their first public announcements. I couldn't believe it. I've seen sci-fi become reality before, but never in as quick as 2 weeks.

Re:No sanctuary - a waste of a gunnery platform

[Embedded Geek]

As I recall, the interview (PBS? Can't remember) only mentioned the Tibetan exile government as a non commercial client (and Sealand, naturally, would not confirm nor deny). As with commercial ventures, though, placing those records on Sealand was of no real value, since a file cabinet in London would've been just as far out of Bejing's juristiction as Sealand was. For a company interesting in slippery actions, the officers would still have to find a country without extradition treaties that apply to them. If you did find such a paridise, then why not just keep the records with you?

As to Mr. Lay, his people were a lot smarter than the Sealand clients. Instead of actively hiding evidence ("No, your honor, I refuse to hand over the data" "Baliff, throw this bastard in a cell"), they destroyed the evidence. The damage is done and any punishment, no matter how richly deserved, is just that - punishment. To actively stand in the path of the court's primary mission, the discovery of information in the pursuit of justice, is an entirely differnet matter. It's the difference between shooting the bird at a freight train's engineer from an embankment and flicking him off while standing in front of a moving train.

You make a very good point about non-commercial ventures, though. If anyone were to stand up and get tossed in the clink for obstruction, it'd be more likely someone who worked for the Dali Lama, not Ken Lay.

Re:Collecting Taxes(OT)

[raju1kabir]

I appreciate your myth-busting (though I still think Sealand is pretty cool). Did you have some sort of personal dispute with them at some point? You seem to know a lot about the true history of the platform.

I've never dealt with them.

I've always had a keen interest in microstates, so the story caught my eye when it first came out a few years ago. The idea of a country that existed almost exclusively to host data, free from the rules of any other sovereign body, seemed amazing, something straight out of science fiction. Out of curiosity I started digging deeper. That's when I started learning how precarious Sealand's legal position actually is, and that outside of the IT press - whose only exposure to him has been this story - Bates and son are regarded as dangerous lunatics.

I think the concept is fascinating, and I'd be intrigued to see how it works out when it actually does happen one day. But I don't think this is it - it'll collapse like a house of cards the first time they come under any pressure.

Not only is their legal position fragile at best, but their physical position is too. As I've said before in other Slashdot threads, give me five or ten thousand dollars and I have absolutely no doubt I could permanently end their enterprise - they're sitting ducks, and tremendously dependent on vulnerable supply lines. And their only recourse would be to appeal to British naval assistance, in which case their pretensions of sovereignty are effectively ended and the outcome is the same.

I am not a commando and I have no interest in actually doing anything like this, but one day there may be someone who does.