HavenCo In Trouble?

i think... by jeffy124 · 2003-08-06 00:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

...it's the more the fact the company only had a whopping six customers.

--
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.

Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 00:57 · Score: 0

his own mother was probably one of them, and moms typically get free service if their kid starts up a business.
Re:i think... by acehole · 2003-08-06 01:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Well that's what you get for having your office 10 miles out to sea.

I heard the investor prospectus came with some floaties.

--
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Re:i think... by Zeinfeld · 2003-08-06 01:12 · Score: 4, Informative

...it's the more the fact the company only had a whopping six customers.
According to Lackey the problem was that HavenCo failled to realize the pure vision of the founders. He pretty much sounds like one of those unreconstructed 1960s communists that claim that the reason the USSR failled is because it was not communist enough.
The fact that they only had 6 customers would explain why the UK authorities appear to have shown so little interest. The platform is inside UK teritorial waters - period. The UK government does not recognize 'Prince Roy' and in this case it is the opinion of the executive and not the judiciary that is relevant. Extreeme ideologues like Lackey can believe what they want, the scheme was doomed from the start because they were not immune to UK law.
The US citizens were certainly not immune from US law. The US has in recent years exported a large number of its laws. For that matter so has the UK.
Under UK law the platform as a man made object is therefore a ship. Ships do not have territorial claims. A ship that does not carry the flag of a recognized nationality is subject to the law of any country that cares to exercise jurisdiction.
There are plenty of real countries where the authorities will turn a bloind eye to any enterprise - at a price. Nigeria for example where the government tollerates the advance fee fraud spammers who have them on the payroll.
The HavenCo employees all went to and from the platfom through Heathrow airport. They could have been arrested by the UK authorities any time they wanted to. Lackey was working in the UK without a work permit.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:i think... by O_Chaos · 2003-08-06 01:18 · Score: 1

Exactly, what about the huge bridge that Blake wanted to put there, with the airport etc... Give it up, make it a prison or something :)

--
Into MMORPG's? Check it out!
Re:i think... by azzy · 2003-08-06 01:37 · Score: 5, Informative

It was however outside of UK territorial waters at the time it was claimed. And as such was not under UK law. The UK extender their territorial waters around it when it was claimed. The legal/political position is a little unclear, however a UK judge has previously declared he had no authority over it as it wasn't part of the UK.
Re:i think... by filledwithloathing · 2003-08-06 01:43 · Score: 5, Informative

The platform is inside UK teritorial waters - period. The UK government does not recognize 'Prince Roy' and in this case it is the opinion of the executive and not the judiciary that is relevant.
Actually when Sealand was "founded", UK Territorial waters only extended 3 miles. You cannot claim territory by extending your Territorial Waters under International Law. Since the UK courts have ruled that they have no jurisdiction in Sealand it would seem that Sealand was and is a country.
The UK could not extend it's Territorial Waters 100 miles and then claim the beaches of Normandy.

--
Are you a VF grad? Check out the VFMA Alumni Forums VFMA Alumni Forum
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:44 · Score: 2, Informative

have you read their history? They have been treated as a sovereign government for over 30 years.

It has been challenged MANY times and has won.

Other countries have even sent diplomats to Sealand to make dealings.

The UK has no more of a claim of rights to Sealand than Sealand has a right to claim rights to anything else.
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:57 · Score: 0

The UK has no more of a claim of rights to Sealand than Sealand has a right to claim rights to anything else.

Except it's 10 miles off the English coast, closer to the UK than any other country, within our claimed territorial waters, and is an old WW2 fortress built by the British Army. Plus, as Iraq should have showed (not to mention the Falklands), Britain isn't shy about starting a (preferably small) war if it feels the need.
Re:i think... by garcia · 2003-08-06 02:01 · Score: 2, Funny

what does this have to do with anything? When Sealand was claimed it was more than the 3 miles off shore that the UK had claimed as it's territorial waters. It later expanded those territorial waters but it could not also claim Sealand as it was already a soverign state at the time.

I seriously doubt that the UK is terribly interested in a reclaiming a rusted gun platform in the middle of the ocean with a single toilet.
Re:i think... by jovlinger · 2003-08-06 02:09 · Score: 0, Troll

... erm why not? It's not like the french would put up a fight...

too easy. I know.
Re:i think... by Deusy · 2003-08-06 02:13 · Score: 2, Funny

The HavenCo employees all went to and from the platfom through Heathrow airport. They could have been arrested by the UK authorities any time they wanted to. Lackey was working in the UK without a work permit.

You're giving the our government way too much credit by implying a lack of action due to apathy.

The reality is that they probably haven't got a clue who Robert Lackey is. He flashed his US passport at customs. The only record of who he is and how long he's been here will be in his passport.

I think much of British prosperity comes down to the incompetence of our politicians allowing business to go on relatively unencumbered.

I mean, really, where else is it written in law that there's fine of a loaf of bread if you throw your faeces out of your balcony window and hit a passer-by in the street.

--
Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 02:32 · Score: 0

There are no horses in "Sealand". Therefore, how can Sealand be claimed as a country? Look at any other country - the UK, USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Germany, France, Brazil, Sweden etc - all of them have horses, Sealand doesn't.
Re:i think... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 02:50 · Score: 4, Informative

He pretty much sounds like one of those unreconstructed 1960s communists that claim that the reason the USSR failled is because it was not communist enough.

I hate to sound like a stickler but I'm going to, anyway.
The original socialist movement away from mother Russia's old Czar ruling was stealthfully turned into a form of totalitarian "dictatorship" shortly after the revolution. So, in actuality, the "communists" you speak of weren't truely speaking of communism as it was currently in mother russia, they were talking about what the true intent was in the beginning.

It was a glimmer of hope for the Russians until that revolution turned out how it did.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:i think... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 03:02 · Score: 1

Oh yeah, that's all we need, another blitzkrieg only with American jets...

=)

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:i think... by CaptainStormfield · 2003-08-06 03:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

It comes down to this: the UK has a colorable claim to sealand (they built it, its in their territorial waters but doesn't count as territory, etc.) However, the most critical fact is this: the UK has a large and effective army. Sealand has a couple of guys with shotguns (if that). If Sealand irritates anyone sufficiently, they're toast.

--
"The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 03:27 · Score: 1, Funny

> posted with: Mozilla Firebird

Lamest. Sig. Ever.
Re:i think... by slipgun · 2003-08-06 03:28 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Q: Why are the streets of Paris lined with trees?

A: The Germans like marching in the shade...

Great, my first post for 5 months and it's to make an un-PC joke. Ah well, goodbye karma.

--
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
Re:i think... by slipgun · 2003-08-06 03:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sealand has a couple of guys with shotguns (if that). If Sealand irritates anyone sufficiently, they're toast.

Actually they have some more modern military hardware (20mm cannons if rumours are to be believed, and certainly automatic weapons), but I agree with the point you're making - they'd have trouble dealing with what is still one of the best trained armies/navies in the world.

--
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 03:35 · Score: 0

The platform is inside UK teritorial waters - period.
You know, I'm going to stop reading the comments section on slashdot..seriously. The fact that someone so uninformed on the situation can spout opinion and be modded so high up proves the insubstantial nature of the entire forum.
The real situation is much more complex. When sealand was "founded," it clearly was outside the then-accepted limit of territorial boundaries, and was thus in "international waters." the UK then decided (unilaterally, as ar as Sealand is concerned) to extend its waters, in effect annexing Sealand without their consent or cooperation. What's more, there is clear case law in the UK upholding Sealand's position that the annexation was illegal. In actual, courts of law, decisions have sided with Sealand and against the UK.
Now I go away. To add insult to injury, this comment will never be seen by anyone. I'm an Anonymous user, and dispite the fact that this post contains more correct information that its parent, it will never be seen...
Geeze.
Re:i think... by MKalus · 2003-08-06 03:38 · Score: 1

According to Lackey the problem was that HavenCo failled to realize the pure vision of the founders. He pretty much sounds like one of those unreconstructed 1960s communists that claim that the reason the USSR failled is because it was not communist enough.

Well, the USSR never was communist, they were Stalinists, the idea of communism went right out of the door the moment Stalin came into the room.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:i think... by sulli · 2003-08-06 03:46 · Score: 1

Yes. You know there's a problem when the slashdot story has as many icons as the company has customers.

--

sulli
RTFJ.
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 04:06 · Score: 0

I seriously doubt that the UK is terribly interested in a reclaiming a rusted gun platform in the middle of the ocean with a single toilet.
Uh, what?!?! English. Do you speak it? Is the UK reclaiming the platform using a single toilet? Or is the ocean the one with the toilet? Either way, your sentence makes no sense.
Re:i think... by filledwithloathing · 2003-08-06 04:18 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually the Brittish briefly tried to retake Sealand but thought better of it when Sealand shot back.
By late 1968, the British navy had become aware of the new situation off the coast of England. They were interested in terminating the state of affairs brought about by an error committed by the most senior military authorities without causing too much uproar.
Units of the navy entered the territorial waters claimed by Roy of Sealand. As he was aware of his sovereignty, Roy of Sealand threatened the navy by undertaking defensive activity. Shots were fired from Sealand in warning. Since Roy of Sealand was still an English citizen, he was thus accused of extensive crimes in Britain and was summoned to an English court. The result of this lawsuit in Chelmsford, Essex was a spectacular success for Sealand's claim to sovereignty. In its judgment of 25 November 1968, the court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory. This is the first de facto recognition of the Principality of Sealand. English law had ruled that Sealand was not part of the United Kingdom, nor did any other nation claim it, hence Prince Roy's declaration of a new Sovereign State was de facto upheld.

The UK's legal system has consistently treated Sealand as a sovereign nation.
"If Sealand irritates anyone sufficiently, they're toast."
...so is Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc., etc., etc.

--
Are you a VF grad? Check out the VFMA Alumni Forums VFMA Alumni Forum
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 04:21 · Score: 0

yeah, that "a" before reclaiming made the sentence SO difficult to understand.

Moron.
Re:i think... by Cramer · 2003-08-06 04:56 · Score: 1

No one will charge to the aid of Sealand... and if they did, Sealand wouldn't be there by the time they arrived. It's a pair of ~60year old pilons with a deck. There isn't a military on the planet that couldn't obliterate that place with the first shot. (The range of the cannons on a US battleship is "over 26 miles.")
Re:i think... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

It was however outside of UK territorial waters at the time it was claimed. And as such was not under UK law. The UK extender their territorial waters around it when it was claimed.

You make it sound like the UK increased the extent of its sea claims in response to the Bateses. Like many other countries during that period, the UK enlarged its territorial waters around the whole of its coastline.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:i think... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually when Sealand was "founded", UK Territorial waters only extended 3 miles. You cannot claim territory by extending your Territorial Waters under International Law.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, drafted in 1982 and put into force by a quorum of signatories in 1994, grants all nations the right to extend their territorial miles from 3 to 12. This was merely an ex post facto formalization of the reality that by 1967 over 80% of the world's nations had already done so. Hence your statement about "International Law" = bunk.

Since the UK courts have ruled that they have no jurisdiction in Sealand it would seem that Sealand was and is a country.

My understanding of UK law is not perfect but as far as I know a pre-trial finding of no jurisdiction has no precedent value and therefore means absolutely nothing except that one judge didn't take one case.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:i think... by filledwithloathing · 2003-08-06 05:31 · Score: 1

Hence your statement about "International Law" = bunk.
Please re-read what I wrote. My statement about International Law is about the fact that you CANNOT CLAIM NEW TERRITORY via extension of your International Waters.
"Sealand was founded as a sovereign Principality in 1967 in international waters, six miles off the eastern shores of Britain."
WHEN SEALAND WAS FOUNDED the UK's Territorial Waters Extended 3 Miles. Their Territorial Waters were later extended to 12 miles. You cannot however claim any territory via expansion of your Territorial Waters. The Unites States CANNOT extend their Territorial Waters to 300 miles and then claim that since Cuba is now within it's Territorial Waters that the U.S. now owns it. (Comments about the current administration aside.)
I know a pre-trial finding of no jurisdiction has no precedent value and therefore means absolutely nothing except that one judge didn't take one case

It means he didn't have jurisdiction in the case. It's like if a German brought suit against another German in an English court. The English court would have no jurisdiction in the case and wouldn't rule on it either way.
"The independence of Sealand was upheld in a 1968 British court decision where the judge held that Roughs Tower stood in international waters and did not fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom."

--
Are you a VF grad? Check out the VFMA Alumni Forums VFMA Alumni Forum
Re:i think... by Scyber · 2003-08-06 05:36 · Score: 3, Informative

And international law specifically states that when you increase your territorial waters you cannot gain any "land" claimed by other countries.
Re:i think... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 05:49 · Score: 0

And international law specifically states that when you increase your territorial waters you cannot gain any "land" claimed by other countries.

And international law also provides no basis to think that Sealand is any more of a "country" (i.e., independent state) than the Hutt River Province, the Spratly Islands, or the People's Republic of My Ass.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:i think... by CaptainStormfield · 2003-08-06 05:53 · Score: 1

Interesting. Two points: if the british navy really got irritated with Sealand, they could just lob a few shells its way, and sealand's "defensive activity" wouldn't count for jack squat. What distinguishes this situation from Luxembourg, etc., is that if the British Navy shelled Sealand into the sea, nobody would care.

--
"The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
Re:i think... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 06:02 · Score: 1

My statement about International Law is about the fact that you CANNOT CLAIM NEW TERRITORY via extension of your International Waters.

The convention explicitly states that off-shore installations and artificial islands cannot form the basis of territorial claims (which should be fairly obvious, otherwise any country could effectively landlock another country by building a sovereign blockade around that country's coastline). Therefore they are not claiming new territory as there is no territory in dispute. Only water which happens to have some stuff in it.

It means he didn't have jurisdiction in the case.

No, and this is very important: It means he decided that he didn't have jurisdiction for the case. Whether or not he actually had it remains to be determined by a process that has the legal competency to make that decision.

Let's say I receive a speeding ticket in New York, and I go to court to fight it. I tell the judge that I am the King of Russia and as such enjoy sovereign immunity, and he believes me, and dismisses the case. That doesn't make me the King of Russia, and it doesn't cause Russia to become a monarchy. It doesn't mean that the United States has recognized me as the King of Russia. All it means is that I don't have to pay the ticket.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:i think... by BobTheLawyer · 2003-08-06 06:22 · Score: 1

the court decision was in 1968 (prior to the extension of the territorial waters) and at the lowest possible judicial level. It is therefore pretty meaningless.
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 06:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

I saw Ryan's talk, and he made things sound a bit worse than Declan's article does (imho ofcourse)... He basically said the the whole bussiness was and has always been founded on lies basically, they never had the physical security they said they did, the few servers that reporters were allowed to see were actually *all* the servers ("more in the secure area below" was untrue, he said), they had days and sometimes months of downtime, and the time when their connectivity was the best was when they had 802.11 links to the mainland.

From Ryan's story, it sounds like he was the only sane person there, but be actually probably is insane also. It very much sounded like the "owners" of sealand never understood the freedom intentions ryan had, and were *always* ready to hand things over to authorities if asked. But luckily none of their customers required an actual Data Haven, ryan said they were mostly online gambling companies with too much spare cash who just hosted there for the novelty.

Ryan is writing a book about all this, which I may actually buy. He's also still trying to sell colo service, which I would never in a million years buy after hearing his talk... :)
Re:i think... by BobTheLawyer · 2003-08-06 06:26 · Score: 1

"challenged MANY times and has won"?

There was one case thirty five years ago in the lowest-ranking type of criminal court. It means nothing.
Re:i think... by BobTheLawyer · 2003-08-06 06:31 · Score: 1

"I mean, really, where else is it written in law that there's fine of a loaf of bread if you throw your faeces out of your balcony window and hit a passer-by in the street."

certainly not in the UK. And if you disagree, cite the law.
Re:i think... by abolith · 2003-08-06 07:46 · Score: 0

Umm we (The U.S.) don't have any active battleships left. That being said the range on a harpoon or a tomahawk, paveway or any other guided missle/bomb is a hell of a lot longer than 26 miles....

--
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
Re:i think... by Cramer · 2003-08-06 07:58 · Score: 1

We still have a few. But, you are correct; they will never be on active duty. There's been one parked in Wilmington, NC for decades.

The battleship is of the same era. And there's a lot to smile at from firing VW bug sized (mass) shells at something.
Re:i think... by monkeydo · 2003-08-06 09:08 · Score: 1

Let's say I receive a speeding ticket in New York, and I go to court to fight it. I tell the judge that I am the King of Russia and as such enjoy sovereign immunity, and he believes me, and dismisses the case. That doesn't make me the King of Russia, and it doesn't cause Russia to become a monarchy. It doesn't mean that the United States has recognized me as the King of Russia. All it means is that I don't have to pay the ticket.

Trust me, he's heard that one before.

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Re:i think... by Zeinfeld · 2003-08-06 13:01 · Score: 1

It was however outside of UK territorial waters at the time it was claimed. And as such was not under UK law. The UK extender their territorial waters around it when it was claimed. The legal/political position is a little unclear, however a UK judge has previously declared he had no authority over it as it wasn't part of the UK.
There is not the slightest doubt as to the legal situation.
The lawsuit occurred at a time when the platform was outside UK territorial waters.
Under international law, free-standing man made structures do not create territorial claims.
Under UK law the platform is a ship. The fact that it does not move is irrelevant. The court judgement did not recognize the platform as a country, it stated that the UK did not have jurisdiction on a ship that was outside UK territorial waters.
The platform is now inside UK territorial waters and therefore subject to UK law.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:i think... by Zeinfeld · 2003-08-06 13:06 · Score: 1

And international law specifically states that when you increase your territorial waters you cannot gain any "land" claimed by other countries.
Where do you think it says that?
'Sealand' is not a party to any international treaty, it is not a member of any international treaty organization.
The UK does not recognize 'sealand' as a country, nor does any other country grant it recognition. As such any claims it makes are about as credible as OJ's attempts to find 'the real killers'.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:i think... by rayvd · 2003-08-06 13:18 · Score: 1

"If Sealand irritates anyone sufficiently, they're toast."

...so is Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc., etc., etc.

Big difference... there would be major international uproar / controversy over someone wiping out any of those nations regardless of how well they could put up a fight. Iceland & co, all have a relatively large number of people living there. Sealand has what, 10?

No one would give a damn if Sealand went under :-)
Re:i think... by Zeinfeld · 2003-08-06 13:21 · Score: 1

The reality is that they probably haven't got a clue who Robert Lackey is. He flashed his US passport at customs. The only record of who he is and how long he's been here will be in his passport.
On the contrary, I have discussed the HavenCo situation with law enforcement officials in the UK. They are fully aware of the situation.
I think much of British prosperity comes down to the incompetence of our politicians allowing business to go on relatively unencumbered.
Hah! a long time since I heard that phrase. Last time I heard it Harold Wilson was PM. The UK is way down the list of prosperous nations. It got clobbered in the 70s with the strikes and oil shocks, then 30% of our manufacturing industry went bankrupt in the first 18 months of the Thatcher period before they finally realised that Milton Friedman is a snake oil salesman and did a U turn. If it wasn't for the invasion of Iraq^h^h^h^hthe Falklands Thatcher would have been a one term PM. Things have been improving since we fell out of the EMU under Major and the economy is a damn sight better than that of the US, but it is not exactly a role model at this point.
And whatever sort of model it is, hands off government is not the cause because the UK does not have that. What it does have is a very competent civil service.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:i think... by Zeinfeld · 2003-08-06 13:26 · Score: 1

>>>According to Lackey the problem was that HavenCo failled to realize the pure vision of the founders. He pretty much sounds like one of those unreconstructed 1960s communists that claim that the reason the USSR failled is because it was not communist enough.
Well, the USSR never was communist, they were Stalinists, the idea of communism went right out of the door the moment Stalin came into the room.
The sort of folk who claim the USSR was not 'communist enough' tend to be the ones who think that Stalin was on the right track.
In any case Lenin was not much better than Stalin. He did not manage to murder as many people as Stalin, but he certainly murdered many in his persuit of personal power.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 13:45 · Score: 0

I hate to post off-topic but is this the same thing that happened in other communist states like China and Cuba? Communism had more than one trial.
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 15:23 · Score: 0

He is talking about unreconstructed communists, not socialists.

In my opinion, the Bolshevik program was doomed from the get-go. And the change in power was not stealthy. Kerensky (an elected leader, and a socialist) and his government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in an armed revolution. This shocked the world, and brought on the Red Scare in the US.
Re:i think... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 16:53 · Score: 1

Communist China is an offshoot of the Communist regime of Russia, and Cuba was just a military takeover, essentially. Castro gained power through a military coup.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:i think... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 16:57 · Score: 1

I guess I should have worded it differently than saying stealthy. I was being a bit sarcastic in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way.

And you are exactly right, precisely right.

Sometimes I wish people would not think that Russian communism == socialism. That's not directed at you, just some of the past posts I've seen in regards to it.
Though they might have been called a socialist republic, they sure didn't practice it.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:i think... by babbage · 2003-08-06 17:45 · Score: 1

In its judgment of 25 November 1968, the court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory. This is the first de facto recognition of the Principality of Sealand.

Actually, by definition, this sounds like the first de jure recognition, which is an important distinction. "De facto" implies that something is generally accepted but indicates that the matter is not codified by law; "de jure" means that the legal system has recognized the matter as well. The latter is much stronger, and it looks to me as though the British courts have with this decision created a valid legal precedent for Sealand's independence. If they'd just thrown the case out of court then the matter would still be "de facto", but they went further, and the distinction is relevant.
(IANAL yadda yadda yadda)

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 22:57 · Score: 0

The last 4 battleships used by the U.S. are all in "mothball" status. They had been refitted with Tomahawk missiles, but the last time they saw action was in the Desert Storm. The Iowa had an explosion in one of her turrets shortly before she was decommissioned. The New Jersey and Missouri went to museum "duty" (in Camden, NJ and Pearl Harbor, HI respectively). The Wisconsin is moored as an exhibit in Norfolk, VA.

Some battleship trivia:

- The New Jersey was considered a "lucky" ship, only suffering one fatality and 3 wounded during her entire length of service - including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and attacking Syrian forces near Beirut.

- The "sleek" look of the U.S. battleships was necessary due to the Panama canal. These ships have a 108 foot beam; the canal is 110 feet wide. You can see how narrowly they fit:

http://www.battleship.org/images/bb62pc.jpg
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 01:13 · Score: 0

Do not attempt to use sarcasm in writing. I say this for two reasons. First, because sarcasm is expressed with the tone of voice; as such, it cannot be expressed in writing. Second, because sarcasm is the lowest form of expression. Say what you mean. Use your words.

Then again, you're defending socialism and communism here, so perhaps you're just an idiot.
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 01:18 · Score: 0

You know, for somebody so uppity, you certainly are wrong. Or maybe the other way around.

"Sealand" is not territory. It's a man-made platform. Free-standing man-made structures cannot extend territorial claims. (UN Convention on blah blah something about the high seas; look it up.)

If "Sealand" were a square foot of unclaimed rock, it would be a different story. It's not, though. It's man-made. And as such, it cannot be sovereign territory of anybody, because it's not territory. Legally, it's a boat. Since it was abandoned by its rightful owners, the laws of salvage apply, which means Prince Timmy or whatever he calls himself could possibly be the owner of the platform, but he's no more a monarch than you or I.

Also, there is no "clear case law" as you claimed. There was one case that was thrown out by a lower court on the grounds that the court did not acknowledge jurisdiction over the case. That doesn't establish precedent; it's a finding of procedure, and findings of procedure don't contribute to case law.

Long story short: either be more correct, or more humble.
Re:i think... by MKalus · 2003-08-07 02:56 · Score: 1

Show me one unbloody revolution please.

Revolution has always been bloody and it always will be, anything else is not revolution but evolution.

Lenin (unlike Stalin) I think was an idealist.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:i think... by idiot900 · 2003-08-07 03:17 · Score: 1

I attended another talk by Ryan Lackey where he spoke briefly about Sealand's defense system. He wasn't too specific, but I got the impression that their defenses are designed to fend off small-scale attacks (i.e. dealing with a few guys on a boat "would be fun") but just to delay a large-scale attack (i.e. British navy) long enough - 30 seconds - to hit the switch that destroys all of the data on the customers' servers. They know they can't hold off any real navy but they are confident they can delay the invading force's entrance into the server rooms for half a minute.
Re:i think... by Zeinfeld · 2003-08-07 05:22 · Score: 1

Show me one unbloody revolution please. Revolution has always been bloody and it always will be, anything else is not revolution but evolution. Lenin (unlike Stalin) I think was an idealist. The 'velvet revolution' in Chzechsolvakia, the revolutions in East Germany, Poland. Even the Romanian revolution that deposed the communists only resulted in about 250 casualties.
But you are ignoring history. The original Russian revolution was essentially bloodless. The Tsar was not deposed by the Bolshevics, it was the Menchevicks who did that in a relatively bloodless coup.
The civil war was entirely due to Lenin's intervention and the failure of the Mencheviks to call an immediate end to the war. If Lenin had not acted Russia would have emerged from WWI in pretty much the same situation as Germany, a discredited monarchy replaced by a democratic republic.
Moreover without the threat of Russian Bolshevism Hitler's rise to power would have been impossible. His principal campaign platform was fear of communist invasion.
Whichever way you look at it extreeme idealogues like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao are dangerous. I don't think that Libertarian or Fundamentalist Christian idealogues are any less dangerous either. So far President Showboat has started two wars and finished neither of them. I don't think a libertarian idealogue would be any better.
The problem is ideology, not the details of the ideology.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:i think... by MKalus · 2003-08-07 07:04 · Score: 1

If ideology is dangerous then you could also say that the US is dangerous (I think it is).

The main reason the US didn't really clash with anyone in the last 100 years (unless "provoked") was simply that it is an island. Germany, Russia etc. are all countries that are very close to each other.

Moreover without the threat of Russian Bolshevism Hitler's rise to power would have been impossible. His principal campaign platform was fear of communist invasion.

If this is correct then I guess what we see happening in the US right now is exactly the same, change the names but: et Voila instant war.

I still don't think that ideolegies by default have to be bad, I just think that certain people tend to abuse them in their own self interrest.

Lenin was maybe more extreme in trying to reach his goals but overall I think under his leadership (and not Stalins) the Soviet Union would most likely have looked a lot different, that aside I don't think communism could ever work (neither capitalism).

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:i think... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-07 12:21 · Score: 1

And international law specifically states that when you increase your territorial waters you cannot gain any "land" claimed by other countries.

And international law also provides no basis to think that Sealand is any more of a "country" (i.e., independent state) than the Hutt River Province, the Spratly Islands, or the People's Republic of My Ass.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:i think... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-08 18:58 · Score: 1

Second, because sarcasm is the lowest form of expression. Say what you mean. Use your words.

Just because you didn't get the subtleness doesn't mean you need to try to counteract it with faux elitism.
I figured anyone who even remotely knew the situation would more than likely grin. Enough said :)

Then again, you're defending socialism and communism here, so perhaps you're just an idiot.

You might want to re-read it, Tiger. I wasn't defending anything, merely bringing the proper context to light.
You never have opened up anything more than the school books, have you? You speak like it, considering the obvious bias. Socialism wasn't all bad, merely the implementation of the end resulting Communism in Russia.

I advise a pretty decent book to learn more about this subject: Marx on Religion. A very interesting book, just don't get sucked into it too far like some people have and start to idolize the writing.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-09 01:54 · Score: 0

Just because you didn't get the subtleness doesn't mean you need to try to counteract it with faux elitism.

It's not "faux." It's the real thing.

I figured anyone who even remotely knew the situation would more than likely grin.

You were wrong.

Enough said

And yet... you continue?

Socialism wasn't all bad, merely the implementation of the end resulting Communism in Russia.

Nope. Socialism is all bad.

I advise a pretty decent book to learn more about this subject: Marx on Religion.

Poison.
Re:i think... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-09 15:35 · Score: 1

*pulls out anonymous coward spray* begone!

haha
*rolls eyes*

yeah, a pointless post, but seems it won't be the first.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:i think... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-09 15:37 · Score: 1

Haha! yes! I love that...
I use that one occasionally to lighten up conversations :)

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

RIAA Air Force by AtariAmarok · 2003-08-06 00:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Not only that, this place would be an early target for the RIAA to test out the bombers in its new air force.

"The king called up his jet fighters
He said you better eaarn your pay
Drop your bombs between the minarets
Down the Casbah way"

If Grokster is outlawed, only outlaws will have Grokster

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:RIAA Air Force by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 00:54 · Score: 0

If Grokster is outlawed, only outlaws will have Grokster

Isn't that pretty much the case now?
Re:RIAA Air Force by nsda's_deviant · 2003-08-06 00:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

ha, that is true

but if you meant "bombers" as in "port spamming" or such, it is very conceivable. if people can distrubute music and RIAAs requests recieve no action by HavenCo since RIAA has no jurisdiction (this was exactlly HavenCo's stategy), then RIAA would be inclined to use every security hole-IP DOS attack-anything that they could come up with because again, who would stop them? Itd be cool to watch tho, it would be the wild wild west cyber.
Re:RIAA Air Force by duffbeer703 · 2003-08-06 01:07 · Score: 1

No, hordes of bandwidth-starved open source developers are supposedly using programs like Grokster and Kazaa to exchange source code and distribute binaries.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:RIAA Air Force by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:10 · Score: 0

Haah, but the RIAA is in a jurisdiction, where attacking/cracking computer systems is a criminal offense, and they can be sued in their jurisdiction, and the actual people doing that can get (improbable, but still potential) jail time !
Re:RIAA Air Force by dr_dank · 2003-08-06 01:50 · Score: 1

then RIAA would be inclined to use every security hole-IP DOS attack-anything that they could come up with because again, who would stop them?

Better yet, cut one of the fiber cables going to the platform. I don't think they have great security of those on the ocean floor.

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Re:RIAA Air Force by billstewart · 2003-08-06 07:47 · Score: 1

Apparently, "Let Prince Michael Administer The Equipment" is almost as effective as cutting the cables, and takes longer to repair....

There are several problems with the RIAA launching cyber-attacks on Havenco. One is that back when Ryan was in charge, he was technically competent, so it's not very effective. Another is that it's not necessarily legal for RIAA, operating from the US or UK, to launch a cracker attack on a foreign target, especially because the attack necessarily affects Havenco's feeds from their UK and NL ISPs. It's less illegal for Havenco to crack back, though it would probably be suicidal, since their ISPs could decide that that was a good reason to cut them off for violating terms of service.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Re:RIAA Air Force by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 01:24 · Score: 0

Name one.

Spelling? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 00:51 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The word is lack, not lak.

Havenco an interesting case... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 00:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

When they first came on the scene, they claimed to not need a fire suppression system due to the fact that their entire facility had been flooded with nitrogen, thus requiring technicians to wear scuba gear to install new equipment. Does anyone know if this was true or if it was BS?

Re:Havenco an interesting case... by goraknotsteve · 2003-08-06 01:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

My old office used to have an "inert gas" fire suppresion system that meant you could only enter the server room with special dongles. If any of the dongles were in use then the system would not flood the room until they were all back in the slots outside the room. Can't remember what the gas was though, but there were certainly emergency gas masks in the room for use in case the system failed. This was in a fairly old server room in a fairly old fashioned office so don't know how commonplace these things are. Sorry if this is slightly off-topic but thought it meritted a reply.

--
How much do you like toast?
Re:Havenco an interesting case... by deblassc · 2003-08-06 01:53 · Score: 5, Informative

this is total BS according to Lackey.

havenco did not have a "sealed oxegen free room" it had 5 lan racks with about 15 servers on there.... thats it.

apparently they spent more money on getting a flakey wireless link up then they did on servers.

also in the talks he said that sealand has like 2 people residing there now.... and he said that a armed takeover would take about 10 minutes..... so anyone have a chopper I can borrow?
Re:Havenco an interesting case... by g_attrill · 2003-08-06 02:36 · Score: 1

There are some interesting photos here. Based on those I can completely believe that the datacenter is somewhat less than state-of-the-art.

I heard that there was full-time armed guards at Sealand - is this some ex-army pensioner with a 12-bore then?

Gareth
Re:Havenco an interesting case... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 03:18 · Score: 1

the oddest thing about that would be that their primary reason of existance would work against them. Since they are outside of any nations waters, no one can stop it. Of course, I'd imagine that if it ticked the wrong people off, you could have harrier jets overhead in less than a week after the "coup".

Though, you have to admit, a real-life Metal Gear Solid 2 mission would be an impressive thing to see. ;)

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Havenco an interesting case... by timeOday · 2003-08-06 11:02 · Score: 1

Was it a halon system? Those really were great fire extinguishers, unfortunately they also extinguished people, as both fire and people breathe oxygen :( Also manufacturing them created a lot of greenhouse gasses. Kinda reminiscent of that kick-butt fire resistant material: asbestos.
Re:Havenco an interesting case... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 15:28 · Score: 0

I suspect that more exciting (though less scenic) operations have been undertaken by special forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Re:Havenco an interesting case... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 01:28 · Score: 0

There's no such thing as an exciting special forces mission. Special forces missions, by definition, are immensely boring affairs. If there were the possibility for any sort of excitement, the mission would have been scrubbed.

US and UK special forces are so good, they make war look dull.

It was only a matter of time... by joshv · 2003-08-06 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

These guys never had a workable business plan to begin with. They were selling bandwidth at a huge premium over what it costs just a few miles away in the UK. If you are able to pay that much, you are probably doing something illegal to begin with, and HavenCo won't host you.

This was a solution looking for a problem that never materialized. The idea certainly captured the imagination of slashdotters though.

-josh

Re:It was only a matter of time... by Karamchand · 2003-08-06 00:59 · Score: 3, Informative

..something illegal to begin with, and HavenCo won't host you.

As you can read in the Acceptable Use Policy on HavenCo's website they will host everything not forbidden by Sealand's law - that is just child pornography.

So you could host copyrighted and pirated videos, plans on how to make the newest mobile nuclear bomb and things like that.
Re:It was only a matter of time... by grennis · 2003-08-06 01:03 · Score: 3, Funny

So you could host copyrighted and pirated videos, plans on how to make the newest mobile nuclear bomb and things like that.
Wow, sounds like a great business plan.
Re:It was only a matter of time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except that the article specifically states that the reason Lackey decided to leave HavenCo was because the Sealand "royal family" would not allow them to host a web site that would allow streaming copyrighted movies.

It is also mentioned that Sealand does not allow the hosting of any activity that violates international law or can be connected to terrorism, so there goes your mobile nuclear bomb.

Did you happen to read the article?
Re:It was only a matter of time... by dasmegabyte · 2003-08-06 01:12 · Score: 1

No, you couldn't. RTFA man. The "royal family" of Sealand are amazingly spineless and their approval is required for any and all new clients.

So yes, while you're right in theory, you're wrong in practice. Because havenco is essentially lying on their AUP. Something almost every shitty hosting company does.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:It was only a matter of time... by Kamel+Jockey · 2003-08-06 01:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

they will host everything not forbidden by Sealand's law

The only problem is that Sealand's Law is whatever their "Crown Prince" says it is. As quoted from the linked article:

During an interview with the BBC, the family said it would readily "turn customer information over to the authorities if there was any serious problem with our stuff," Lackey said
So no matter what the AUP may say, the real "terms of service," like the law in general in Sealand, is whatever their "ruling family" says it is. Companies like stable governments. They do not want to take risks dealing with governments that change the way they do business in a rapid manner. With this latest change, Sealand has become no different than any other jurisdiction in which internet service is offered. As a result, they can only compete on price, and with cheaper prices and more reliable service elsewhere, companies will skip over Sealand.
Also from the article:

Lackey ... said another problem was the Sealand family's tinkering with the network connection

No company will want anything to do with any government touching their connectivity in such an arbitrary manner, especially when they are paying a premium for Internet Access whose claim to fame is that they "don't do that." Another thing Lackey mentioned was Sealand's attempt to tax its customers. That is another example of a bait-and-switch tactic which will drive away existing business and scare away future customers.

--
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Re:It was only a matter of time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:45 · Score: 1, Funny

Did you happen to read the article?

No, s/he didn't. Why should s/he when s/he gets her/his posts modded up anyway?
Re:It was only a matter of time... by swb · 2003-08-06 01:47 · Score: 1

It's not a terrible idea, but instead of being a site for others to host dodgy content, they should have gone into a more consumer oriented business selling secure, anonymous email, P2P supernodes, personal file sharing, and that sort of thing.

I'm not sure how you'd *pay* them anonymously, but providing the "naughty" services instead of expecting others to rent trifling bandwidth from them to do so might have provided a better revenue stream.
Re:It was only a matter of time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:48 · Score: 0

"So no matter what the AUP may say, the real "terms of service," like the law in general in Sealand, is whatever their "ruling family" says it is"

Uh..."ruling family". Right. You`ve really researched this, haven't you.

Tosser.
Re:It was only a matter of time... by Blue+Stone · 2003-08-06 01:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

AC makes a very important point, I feel.
The whole edge that HavenCo has over it's mainland competitors, is it's different IP "laws." With the Sealand "Royal Family" outlawing the exploitation of the difference in IP law, HaveCo is surely doomed to failure.
I mean, what's HavenCo got to offer that's so special now?

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:It was only a matter of time... by sxltrex · 2003-08-06 02:54 · Score: 5, Funny

Did you happen to read the article?

You're new here, aren't you? ;-)
Re:It was only a matter of time... by sql*kitten · 2003-08-06 03:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only problem is that Sealand's Law is whatever their "Crown Prince" says it is.

Sealand's law is whatever the British Government will let them get away with. A frigate's detachment of Marines could re-occupy the platform in minutes without breaking a sweat. The Crown Prince is tolerated because Britain has a tradition of tolerating eccentrics so long as they don't harm anyone. If Sealand were to declare that it was willing to break British laws wholesale, bearing in mind that it is strategically located, it would rapidly - and perhaps physically - cease to exist.
Re:It was only a matter of time... by doinky · 2003-08-06 03:28 · Score: 1

More specifically, regarding their business plan, the idea that the set of customers who finds US or UK law to be too restrictive seems to have little intersection with the set of customers who are willing to pay extraordinarily high rates for hosting services.
In short, hackers and kooks ain't where the money's at.
Re:It was only a matter of time... by kevlar · 2003-08-06 03:54 · Score: 1

Yes. On top of this, why would you pay that ridiculous premium when you can always host something in the Bahamas or some other sovereign nation with few laws, low taxes and a decent Internet connection? The answer is that you wouldn't...
Re:It was only a matter of time... by stefanlasiewski · 2003-08-06 04:56 · Score: 1

With the Sealand "Royal Family" outlawing the exploitation of the difference in IP law, HaveCo is surely doomed to failure.

Sealand's very existance teeters on the edge. If they violated too many of the UK IP laws, the UK might decide to stop playing games and just seize the island outright.

At the very least, shutting down HavenCo for the duration of the legal battle would put HavenCo out of business.

--
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Re:It was only a matter of time... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 05:07 · Score: 1

So you could host copyrighted and pirated videos

Did you even read the article? Lackey left after they turned down a multi-million-dollar offer from Taiwan's Mr Tan who wanted to host movies there.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:It was only a matter of time... by Asmodean · 2003-08-06 05:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

"It's not a terrible idea, but instead of being a site for others to host dodgy content, they should have gone into a more consumer oriented business selling secure, anonymous email, P2P supernodes, personal file sharing, and that sort of thing.
I'm not sure how you'd *pay* them anonymously, but providing the "naughty" services instead of expecting others to rent trifling bandwidth from them to do so might have provided a better revenue stream."

Hmm... I'll take a crack at this.

When you open an account with the hosting company they issue you an account number. They do not collect ANY information from you. When your bill is due, you stuff cash into an envelope and send it off to them with your account number on it.

Another added layer is to make sure they keep no logs whatsoever on anyone that uses your account/site.

The problem with this is that if your site gets hacked YOU will also have no way to track the hacker down since the host does not keep logs.

The account will remain active for up to x days after your payment is due. If nobody sends money for that account, they can delete it. You would probably pay by the year or something though as opposed to paying by the month.

--
It's a good thing the world sucks or we'd all fall off.
Re:It was only a matter of time... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2003-08-06 06:25 · Score: 1

Why waste the time and money sending Marines anywhere? Just cut the link between Sealand and the internet. They have a backup satellite link, but that's slooow. I always thought the company was a stupid idea.

-B
Re:It was only a matter of time... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 09:51 · Score: 0

Oh my fucking god. Stop fucking saying that! And for god's fuckin' sake stop modding this stupid shit up!!!

I see this ******exact***** same exchange in like every fuckin' article. It's *not* funny. Die!!
Re:It was only a matter of time... by evilviper · 2003-08-06 10:13 · Score: 1

A frigate's detachment of Marines could re-occupy the platform in minutes without breaking a sweat.

One bomb would take everything and everyone out, but neither would be a good move, politically.

Besides, if you were an ex-general, and was living in a gun platform, which has repeatedly been attacked by armed forces, don't you think you would have taken some extrodinary measures to secure it? A basketball-court sized fortification would be very difficult to overtake.

The Crown Prince is tolerated because Britain has a tradition of tolerating eccentrics so long as they don't harm anyone.

So shooting warning shots at passing boats is considered tolerable? The courts even said sealand is outside of their jurisdiction.

If Sealand were to declare that it was willing to break British laws wholesale, bearing in mind that it is strategically located, it would rapidly - and perhaps physically - cease to exist.

Posession and use of firearms isn't breaking British laws?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:It was only a matter of time... by evilviper · 2003-08-06 10:21 · Score: 1

If they violated too many of the UK IP laws, the UK might decide to stop playing games and just seize the island outright.

You could say the same thing about any country vs. any country.

If (Country A) violated too many (Country B) laws, (Country A) might just decide to seize (Country B) outright.

How does that mean any country is teetering on the edge? Will the UK go out and seize any other country with a weak army, just because they don't like the laws of their country?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:It was only a matter of time... by stefanlasiewski · 2003-08-06 10:43 · Score: 1

You could say the same thing about any country vs. any country.

Except that the UN has laws protecting established legitimate countries. The UN doesn't recognize Sealand. There is no international protection. There are few entities that consider Sealand as a nation are geeks and other micronations.

All the UK has to do is send 2 dozen soldiers to the platform, arrest the occupants, and throw them in jail. Few people are going to care, outside of Slashdot and some micronations.

Will the UK go out and seize any other country with a weak army, just because they don't like the laws of their country?

Many wars are justified that way. It's been done in the past, and it's done today. Iraq was just seized because the UK & US felt threatened by the leadership of the country.

--
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Re:It was only a matter of time... by evilviper · 2003-08-06 11:52 · Score: 1

Except that the UN has laws protecting established legitimate countries.

That sure helped out Iraq didn't it?

Iraq was just seized because the UK & US felt threatened by the leadership of the country.

And politically, it's the worst thing Bush and Blair could possibly have done... I doubt either will be elected another term.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:It was only a matter of time... by rayvd · 2003-08-06 13:10 · Score: 1

Besides, if you were an ex-general, and was living in a gun platform, which has repeatedly been attacked by armed forces, don't you think you would have taken some extrodinary measures to secure it? A basketball-court sized fortification would be very difficult to overtake.

First of all, this place wouldn't stand a CHANCE against trained troops from a modern millitary. That said, storming the "fortress" wouldn't even be necessary. Just cut off their supplies, power, whatever and they'd have to surrender eventually. This place would be a cinch to capture if the UK wanted to :)

Posession and use of firearms isn't breaking British laws?

I think he said wholesale... meaning that if these Sealand folks are blatantly violating many many British laws and begin affecting the lives of your average Briton, they'd do something about it. Right now they're being very tolerant.
Re:It was only a matter of time... by evilviper · 2003-08-06 16:40 · Score: 1

First of all, this place wouldn't stand a CHANCE against trained troops from a modern millitary.

Of course, but good luck to Blair, trying to explain why 10 soldiers were killed to take over a rusted-out platform.

Just cut off their supplies, power, whatever and they'd have to surrender eventually.

The UK isn't their only point of access. Also, the UK would have to have anti-aircraft guns to shoot down the Sealand helicopter, otherwise they can just fly supplies back and forth. Again, I wouldn't want to be Blair, trying to explain why they shot down an un-armed helicopter with a retired general, and his son onboard.

and begin affecting the lives of your average Briton

Well making copyright movies and music available for download, and providing a safe-haven for gabling does not "affect the lives of your average Briton", so I don't suspect that was the meaning he had intended.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:It was only a matter of time... by Fat+Casper · 2003-08-07 13:16 · Score: 1

Will the UK go out and seize any other country with a weak army, just because they don't like the laws of their country?
I'm Irish, you insensitive clod!

--
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Re:It was only a matter of time... by evilviper · 2003-08-07 15:33 · Score: 1

I'm Irish, you insensitive clod!

So am I... Did you have a point?

History is just that.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 00:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

and what kind of sites were considered to be havenco material?

Re:Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 00:59 · Score: 3, Informative

The popular cracks site, cracks.am is hosted on HavenCo.
Re:Hrmm by darkkewulf · 2003-08-06 01:16 · Score: 1, Informative

and what kind of sites were considered to be havenco material?

From another article (old):

For "security reasons," HavenCo will mention the name of only one client: Tibet Online, the Net presence of the exiled government, which is eager to escape the clutches of China.

--

"All universal moral principles are idle fantasies." -The Marquis de Sade
Re:Hrmm by cameronsto · 2003-08-06 02:07 · Score: 0

How do you know this? I thought anonymity was a main point of their business model.
Re:Hrmm by zemkai · 2003-08-06 03:56 · Score: 1

How do you know this? I thought anonymity was a main point of their business model.
Try traceroute.
-ZK
Re:Hrmm by mcgroarty · 2003-08-06 04:32 · Score: 1

If you Google for "hosted havenco" you'll find a few casino sites that advertise being at HavenCo. From there, you can simply check port 80 on other addresses in the same netblock.
When I hunted around, I found a few more casinos and a money exchanger (virtual money) outfit, nothing exciting.
Re:Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 04:51 · Score: 0

now hosted by http://www.cyborganic.net/ see at the bottom of www.tibet.org

no wonder they're in trouble! by drgroove · 2003-08-06 00:58 · Score: 5, Funny

given by Ryan Lackey, former CTO of HavenCo, at DefCon

Even their ex-CTO was a Lackey!

Not worth the money... by sputnikid · 2003-08-06 00:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

There are no valid reasons why anyone would need to host anything at HavenCo. In the UK you can host the same site for half of what it costs at HavenCo... and for even cheaper in the US.

Perhaps they were hoping that Napster would find refuge there?

Re:Not worth the money... by admbws · 2003-08-06 01:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

The real truth is, you could find a colocation facility in China or other far-eastern country that would host you a hell of a lot cheaper. They are simply not competitive.

Furthermore, if I was hosting seriously illegal content on a huge scale, I would question the militarial resiliance of Sealand too. They are just a small fort, probably with no real defences to speak of anymore. Would a certain country or two we know go as far as invading it because the rampant piracy was hurting their economy? These countries have already ignored the UN's opinion on a certain military campaign very recently. At least only a very stupid country would dare invade China!
Re:Not worth the money... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:48 · Score: 0

One of the classic blunders!
Re:Not worth the money... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 03:25 · Score: 1

These countries have already ignored the UN's opinion on a certain military campaign very recently.

Not to worry, Iraq is under a new regime now, so we won't have that problem any longer.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Not worth the money... by dildatron · 2003-08-06 03:50 · Score: 1

I think it would be more fair to say that the UN ignored its own previous opinion.

--

If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
Re:Not worth the money... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 05:57 · Score: 0

"There are no valid reasons why anyone would need to host anything at HavenCo."

Not a valid reason? Says you.

If I want to run a gambling site, I can't host it in the US. US wire/telco laws make it illegal for gambling that occurs across state lines, as well as you are subject to the laws of the state where the hosting occurs (to be overly simple, this usually means illegal unless you're in Nevada or New Jersey).

Further, the advertising of such services is illegal under a certain (and constitutionally dubious) federal law. This is where they normally get you if they don't "like" you.

Now, people's opinion of gambling widely varies, but I consider it a "valid" activity, despite that I don't gamble and look down on anyone who does, including the fools that buy lottery tickets.

Now, I could host such a site in Britain. Britain somewhat recently relaxed their bookie/gambling taxation laws, which led to relaxed online gambling laws as well. But due residing in the US, and the last advertising law, if my advertising is PERCEIVED as targetting US residents, I'd be held under US law, even if it is hosted in Britain.

But I still could host in Britain, but the ISP over there would probably hand over my info without a moment's thought. Maintenance and upload I could handle through an anonymous proxy service, no problem. So where is the problem?

They would target how I pay for the ISP service to trace. There is, AFAIK, no anonymous payment service that works AND is minimally accepted. e-gold is close, but not quite. PayPal certainly isn't. Bank transfer not. The only one I've found is one on Freenet, but that's not commonly accepted, certainly by no British ISP I've seen.

7-11s/American Express's cash card that acts like a credit card is dead--killed by 9/11.

Failing they don't shut you down via payment services, they would target the DNS system for legit info. You could get your domain name pulled for having not updated or accurate address, phone, or payment IFF someone points it out and makes a stink (a government, for example). For payment, that's covered already--see the anonymous payment issue, worse given that most domain registrars don't accept anon payments. For phone, you could go with a pay as you go cellular with voice mail and drop it in a metal box when you're not using it, but lately, it's harder to get such phones (Radio Shack used to, maybe they still do, sell them). Address? I know of no redirect mailing service that's anonymous.

You got a way to do anon payments, register an address and phone that is nearly untraceable, you'd like to tell us about?

"Perhaps they were hoping that Napster would find refuge there?"

No shit. Given one of the founders of the HavenCo company was an exec at Napster, duh.

Valdemar by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:00 · Score: 0

You'd think if Mercedes Lackey was going to make a fake country, she'd call it Valdemar.

To paraphrase Yoda by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:01 · Score: 0

"Data Haven" or "Not Data Haven"

Try to pull some ride-the-fence bullshit and neither side will be happy.

AND GODDAMMIT I MISS FILM88!

poltiics? by freedommatters · 2003-08-06 01:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The key lesson on this is if you're going to put a 'co-lo' facility somewhere, political and contract stability in that jurisdiction is very important" er, yes, and i thought the political aspect was meant to be one of the main selling points, ie, it wasn't governed by the UK. perhaps they should have sorted that one out before they tried to make their billions. surely they are just a very late casualty of the dot.com bubble?

--
All I Want For Christmas Is My Constitutional Rights

acceptable use policy by Carbon+Unit+549 · 2003-08-06 01:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Their acceptable use policy defeats the purpose of the haven?!

HavenCo said on Monday that its acceptable use policy "stands as originally written. However it is the case that principality law forbids any act...which is against international law, linked with terrorism, or contrary to international custom and practice. These restrictions are in keeping with those found in any country."

That bold bit pretty much covers everything.

--

nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &

Bad Publicity? by StickMang · 2003-08-06 01:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

From the article:
Tan was prepared to pay HavenCo millions of dollars to host a Web site that would let customers stream movies from legally purchased DVDs, something that was not clearly illegal because only one customer at a time could view each stream, Lackey said. The Sealand royal family balked over the possibility of bad publicity, Lackey said. "I decided as soon as I got out of the meeting that I was going to quit," Lackey said.

No wonder they're going under. They're HavenCo, they should be hosting these types of sites. They turn down hosting sites like this that seem almost custom fitted to their business model! The king of sealand must be a quirky fellow indeed.

--
StickMan
www.rageagainst.net

Re:Bad Publicity? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

It's more likely that the king of Sealand is just exercising good sense. It has been noted more than once that Sealand has no real standing as an independent principality and that the British could take it over in a second if they decided that it was worth the trouble. I think the "king" knows this and is trying to maintain a low profile, probably moreso since 9/11.
Re:Bad Publicity? by dasmegabyte · 2003-08-06 01:15 · Score: 4, Funny

Does "quirky fellow" mean "complete idiot?"

Now I feel really insulted. I'm always getting called quirky!

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Bad Publicity? by aliens · 2003-08-06 01:18 · Score: 1

We're talking Streaming video here, not streaming terrorists instructions. 9/11 is a moot point to this.

--
-- taking over the world, we are.
Re:Bad Publicity? by AndroidCat · 2003-08-06 01:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

It reminds me of the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail when King Arthur and his knights were suddenly arrested and then the camera straight-armed. The End.
Sealand's soverenty will last only until they cross over a line. And the line has shifted a lot closer since 9/11, Afganistan and Iraq. He's certainly no terrorist, but if he annoys someone or some company, they just have to get a court order and send the police over to arrest him. The British love an excentric, but that only goes so far.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Bad Publicity? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 02:14 · Score: 0

True. But given Sealand's tenuous legal standing and the general environment since 9/11, why do anything that might raise your profile? I'm sure some smart beaurocrat could connect copyright violations to terrorists.
Re:Bad Publicity? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 02:24 · Score: 0

I agree. And if there is no smart bureaucrat at hand, there is still a stupid president.
Re:Bad Publicity? by pclminion · 2003-08-06 04:35 · Score: 1

The king of sealand must be a quirky fellow indeed.
One of the things that was made very clear in the talk (yes, I saw it) was that Lackey himself is terribly disappointed in how this has turned out. He doesn't want HavenCo to be going the way it is -- the problem is, the multi-million-dollar financiers are too paranoid to allow such grey-area use. Lackey is getting fucked, this is a raw deal. He's a great guy. He's already blown $250000 of his own fucking money on this, and used two years of his life. Give the guy a fucking break, will you.
Re:Bad Publicity? by Tokerat · 2003-08-06 05:33 · Score: 1

Sealand is not part of the UK, that's out of their juristiction.

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Re:Bad Publicity? by Xerithane · 2003-08-06 06:04 · Score: 1

Lackey is getting fucked, this is a raw deal. He's a great guy. He's already blown $250000 of his own fucking money on this, and used two years of his life. Give the guy a fucking break, will you.

Lackey isn't the king of Sealand. We are giving him a break, and we're saying the King of Sealand is the idiot.

Apparently you haven't been paying too much attention, and if you saw the talk why didn't you figure out how was actually speaking? I guess it's not as cool to say you watched Lackey, the CTO for the Principality of Sealand, huh?

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Re:Bad Publicity? by BobTheLawyer · 2003-08-06 06:35 · Score: 1

multi-million dollar financiers are always reluctant to invest money in countries with weak legal systems, or where the rulers can change laws on a whim. They're no more likely to invest in "Sealand" than they are in North Korea.
Re:Bad Publicity? by elemental23 · 2003-08-06 07:04 · Score: 1

Untrue. From the article in question:

Although its legal status is unclear, Sealand lies within the territorial boundary of 10 miles claimed by England.

--
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
Re:Bad Publicity? by StickMang · 2003-08-06 07:15 · Score: 1

The problem is, when Sealand was created, England only claimed 3 miles of territorial boundary. They changed their claim in the 90's to 10 miles, therefore in Sealand's eyes, they're grandfathered in. I have no doubt that Sealand could be taken by england in two seconds, according to their own laws, they have no right to do so.

--
StickMan
www.rageagainst.net
Re:Bad Publicity? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 07:20 · Score: 0

The British love an excentric...

So this is a former centric?
Re:Bad Publicity? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 08:29 · Score: 0

It has ceased to be balanced. If you hadn't nailed it down, it'd be wearing its underwear on its head. It's joined the loonies-invisabule! This is an ex-centric!
Re:Bad Publicity? by evilviper · 2003-08-06 10:06 · Score: 1

Sealand's soverenty will last only until they cross over a line.

You mean until they refuse to sell their oil to the US?

they just have to get a court order and send the police over to arrest him

The UK courts arrested his son, and ruled that Sealand does not fall under their jurisdiction.

Besides, UK police don't carry guns, but everyone on Sealand does... So, the UK would have to send in a military force, essentially invading another country. Considering current events, I don't think that would be a very popular political move... Can you say "Ruby Ridge in the Atlantic"?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

A successful site hosted at HavenCo/Sealand by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

The GoldCasino has been there for a long time. They used to have comm link problems from time to time, but over about the last 6 months or so seem to be pretty reliable - so maybe the current execs are right and Lackey is not?
MultiPlayer Poker at TGC is a great time consumer!

Re:A successful site hosted at HavenCo/Sealand by cameronsto · 2003-08-06 02:09 · Score: 0

How do you know this?
Re:A successful site hosted at HavenCo/Sealand by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 03:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you mean, how do I know they are hosted by Havenco - then I use traceroute and read their news page.
If you mean, how do I know they are successful - then it is because they have managed to be around for several years, they seem to be popular in the internet gold world, and they say the following things regarding themselves:

It has been operating since February 2000. TGC is very profitable. It has been profitable since its 3rd quarter of operations and has never had a losing quarter since then. Profits have increased in every quarter. TGC has no debt and has had no debt since 1st Quarter 2001. TGC has excellent cash reserves. It has zero receivables. It has no liabilities.

That is from another successful HavenCo site, dBourse that sells shares in TGC.

no solution to legal responsibilities by mblase · 2003-08-06 01:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

The "gimmick" for this business was that they could host sites outside of one's own country, thus protecting one from legal liability for the content. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it demonstrated that the legal responsibility for content on a web site lies with the site's owner, not the hosting provider, and thus the owner would be held responsible under the laws of the country where he lived?

Re:no solution to legal responsibilities by Kubla+Khan · 2003-08-06 01:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

They prefer not to know who you are, they advise you use anonymous remailers to contact them, and various difficult to trace means of payment. If they dont know who you are, then how does the goverment of your country even know if you are one of their citizens? They also promise that they will not turn over your data(or did the 'kings' remarks seem to call that into question), and in the event of an armed attack on the platform they drop your disks into a vat of acid and turn over the rest of the box.

--
"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree"
Re:no solution to legal responsibilities by wfberg · 2003-08-06 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

You're subject to the laws of who ever can get at you. For example, some of the United States have "long arm statutes" that determine that if your "crime" has effect in a certain State, you're criminally liable in that State. Recently, a lot of people have been extradited from The Netherlands for crimes commited *in* The Netherlands, where you'd expect The Netherlands has complete jurisdiction. But owing to long arm statutes they were deported anyway, since how to interpret those statutes is up to a US judge, according to the extradition treaties.

To add insult to injury, evidence was collected against these people in a manner that would normally be illegal (entrapment etc.) but since it was done by "liason officers" of the US embassy, which have diplomatic immunity, and the US constitution (i.e. 4 amendmend etc.) do NOT apply in The Netherlands (while criminal statutes DO) they are totally fucked.

Usually these people succumb to some hefty offer from the US "diplomats" to produce and sell to the "diplomats" some synthetic drugs, and are then deported to the US, where they do NOT get their day in court, but rather take a plea bargain offer, and then rot away in US jails for a few years. (They are rarely allowed to sit out their sentences in Dutch jails, even though the US has agreed to this in the extradition treaty; but you see, the judiciary isn't bound to that treaty, because judges decide what the law is in the first place..)

In other words; you're fucked in any jurisdiction, because there will always be a country you will be deported to even if you're not doing anything illegal at that time and in that jurisdiction.

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Re:no solution to legal responsibilities by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 02:27 · Score: 0

The "hosting with a vat of acid" trick could have been pulled off cheaper by staying on solid ground.
Re:no solution to legal responsibilities by Kubla+Khan · 2003-08-06 03:11 · Score: 1

A vat of acid costs the same no matter where you use it:) But seriously, while the uk goverment could probably get away with having a frigate pull along side and say 'give us the machine or we
take it by force' , if they arrest the operators of the platform they have a whole bunch of problems. The last time the 'king' went to court it was for taking potshots at a passing fishing vessel from the platform. The judge ruled that he did not have jurisdiction, so the only trial which has touched on the platforms status as a soverign nation went their way. It could take years just to prove the uk courts have juridiction (or not as the case may be). Dropping a hard drive that the police have come to sieze in a vat of acid when you are definately on uk soil results in a charge of destroying evidence that will be a lot easier to pursue.

--
"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree"
Re:no solution to legal responsibilities by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 06:22 · Score: 0

Ummm...right. I'm sure that's happened. Give me ONE example...come on, gimme a name and link to a credible news source. what's that? oh, oh, you can't? BIG FUCKING SURPRISE.

Now put your tin foil hat back on.

Business and lunatics by duffbeer703 · 2003-08-06 01:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Who in the hell is going to do business with some lunatic who fancies himself as the "Prince" of a gun platform?

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK

Re:Business and lunatics by mr_luc · 2003-08-06 01:46 · Score: 4, Funny

That is a very funny question, and I have to think that the only business that could consider it seriously would be a casino. That kind of flashiness would seem to fit right in. I can hear the TV ads now:

"Wanna know just how Exciting our Online Gambling Site is? OUR site is hosted on a rusting gun tower 6 miles off of the coast of England, run by a man that claims it as his own sovereign nation. That's right -- this gambling site is hosted out of a basketball-court-sized country called Sealand!"
"Reliability? Security? Just remember that all of your financial transactions are subject to the whims of a man that fancies himself a king!"

I like those odds.
Re:Business and lunatics by Tackhead · 2003-08-06 02:23 · Score: 5, Funny

> "Reliability? Security? Just remember that all of your financial transactions are subject to the whims of a man that fancies himself a king!"
And how'd 'e get to be king, eh? By exploitin' the geeks! Supreme authority 'as got to come from a widely distributed peer-to-peer network, not from some farcical aquatic hosting company!
I mean, if I went around sayin' I was king just because some moistened bint threw a bunch of servers and a fiber-optic link at me, they'd put me away!
Re:Business and lunatics by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 02:28 · Score: 0

Who going to do business with a bunch of smelly geeks who give their product away for free...?

'nuf said...
Re:Business and lunatics by loucura! · 2003-08-06 02:34 · Score: 1, Redundant

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

--
Black and grey are both shades of white.
Re:Business and lunatics by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 03:32 · Score: 1

The Christians seem to unfortunately be doing great for 2000 years...

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Business and lunatics by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 03:34 · Score: 4, Funny

What in the hell is a moistened bint?

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Business and lunatics by jbert · 2003-08-06 04:17 · Score: 4, Informative

"bint"

Noun. Colloquial, mildly offensive term for "woman", esp. attractive womain. See "trim", "bird", etc.

"moistened"

Adjective. Made wet, or "wetted".

"moistened bint": humourously (sp?) constructed phrase referring to the "Lady of the Lake", a character in Arthurian legend who is the source of the sword Excalibur, used by King Arthur. The sword symbolises Arthur's right of rule and so, in effect, the power of government ultimately resides with the wet woman in question.
Re:Business and lunatics by dipipanone · 2003-08-06 04:22 · Score: 1

A bint is a woman, but God knows what moistened means in this context. Drunk? Horny?
Re:Business and lunatics by iabervon · 2003-08-06 06:35 · Score: 1

You've clearly never travelled to a gun platform in the North Sea. It probably means half-drowned and hypothermic.
Re:Business and lunatics by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 06:55 · Score: 0

Hey, that's a pretty clever synonym for 'watery tart'
Re:Business and lunatics by nacturation · 2003-08-06 07:31 · Score: 1

What in the hell is a moistened bint?

A moistened bint is your complete ignorance of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

And you call yourself a geek. Shame.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:Business and lunatics by billstewart · 2003-08-06 08:02 · Score: 1

Oi thought we was more of an autonomous collective!

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Re:Business and lunatics by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 08:11 · Score: 0

Your mom seems to be doing all right too.
Re:Business and lunatics by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 11:56 · Score: 1

I call myself a geek with taste :P
I could never get into the Monty Python genre of humour. It just seemed assinine.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

All about the price by mcgroarty · 2003-08-06 01:11 · Score: 5, Informative

I wanted to host there, but a low-end box on a trickling 64kbit line was $500/month!

They really need to offer lower rates to fill those racks up a bit more, save the novelty premiums for those last slots.

Re:All about the price by dr_dank · 2003-08-06 02:01 · Score: 1

I wanted to host there, but a low-end box on a trickling 64kbit line was $500/month!

Not only that, but they made you buy your server from them at rather high prices.

They wouldn't accept servers shipped to them like other colos do as they could contain bombs, listening devices, killer robots, etc...

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Re:All about the price by mcgroarty · 2003-08-06 03:06 · Score: 1

In all fairness, the 64kbit machine was a special which included the lease.
The higher-end plans all involve purchasing hardware from them, however. It's inconvenient, but I don't remember the hardware prices being too altogether absurd -- it's just the monthly fees and the bandwidth charges that kill you. And even a local connection between two colocated machines is abusively expensive.
Re:All about the price by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-08-06 03:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wanted to host there, but a low-end box on a trickling 64kbit line was $500/month!

If you can't afford $500/mo for 64k you don't need HavenCo hosting. They should be handling online gambling sites and the like that can easily make up that kind of overhead.

It's not an unreasonable price considering what a quality business-class satellite connection goes for and that they need to generate their own power, maintain the platform, fend off the Bobbies, make a profit, etc.

If I were the FBI, CIA, I'd try to bug their platform as a customer, so their home-built computer restriction isn't unreasonable either.

They are dumb, however, to turn down lucrative projects due to 'bad publicity' concerns. Theirs is a political game, and in politics, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:All about the price by mcgroarty · 2003-08-06 03:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you can't afford $500/mo for 64k you don't need HavenCo hosting.
Maybe so, but if not enough people need HavenCo hosting for HavenCo to survive, perhaps they need to compete as a conventional provider at least long enough to fill in some of the dead slots. So long as the incremental cost of adding servers is less than the money each would gross, this is only common sense. If the incremental cost of adding each extra server actually approaches $500/month however, then they have some serious problems.
Re:All about the price by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-08-06 04:07 · Score: 1

Yeah, there's a reply from the guy who runs it attached to this article where he's optimistic on cost.

You have a good point though - send the guy some mail - maybe he can cut you a deal with a right to kick you out when he gets full.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:All about the price by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 05:14 · Score: 1

It's not an unreasonable price considering what a quality business-class satellite connection goes for and that they need to generate their own power, maintain the platform, fend off the Bobbies, make a profit, etc.

So what? I could run a hosting facility on the moon and you could easily show how a price of $20,000,000 per month was entirely reasonable given my costs.

Fact is that they've failed to find an intersection of supply and demand price that results in much business getting done. Either they need to find a way to run it more cheaply or they need to take on more controversial clients.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:All about the price by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-08-06 05:55 · Score: 1

So what? I could run a hosting facility on the moon and you could easily show how a price of $20,000,000 per month was entirely reasonable given my costs.

Yeah, and if I had computers that absolutely needed to run at 1/6th gravity, and I had a business model that made that profitable, I'd use your hosting facilty. I happen to believe there are customers out there, he's just being sheepish about hosting them. Fortune favors the bold.

Either they need to find a way to run it more cheaply or they need to take on more controversial clients.

Look elsewhere in the comments for a message from the owner - he's working on doing it more cheaply - he expects to be able to run at a $50/mbit/mo premium over traditional hosting. I think he's too agressive on price, he should sell his features, for which there is very little supply.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

SARS by gr8_phk · 2003-08-06 01:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Oh, and 9/11, of course.

But what about SARS? Blaming 9/11 is old-school.

Re:SARS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 02:13 · Score: 0

Haha... stupid European.
Re:SARS by Alan+Partridge · 2003-08-06 04:09 · Score: 1

They didn't (couldn't?) fly a 767 into the Eiffel Tower though, did they?

Who's stupid again?

--
That was classic intercourse!

Ruling requested..... by Darth_brooks · 2003-08-06 01:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Although its legal status is unclear, Sealand lies within the territorial boundary of 10 miles claimed by England.

It's legal status was determined a long time ago. here is a good place to start.

"On October 1st, 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles. At nearly the same time, 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."

Since sealand was outside the initial 3 mile border when it was first claimed, England cannot claim sealand for itself. It would be similar to the United States attempting to annex Cuba by extending the border a further 90 miles south.

"Some nations might have tried to use this as an excuse to try to claim all of the territory of the weaker and not well recognized nation regardless of international law, however, this has not been the case. Britain has made no attempt to take Sealand, and the British government still treats it as an independent State. Prince Roy continues to pay no British National Insurance during the time he resides on Sealand subsequent to a ruling by the British Department of Health and Social Security's solicitors branch. Also, there was another fire arms incident in 1990 when a ship strayed too near Sealand and warning shots were again fired. The ship's crew made complaints to British authorities and a newspaper article ran detailing the incident. Yet despite Britain's severe prohibition of firearms, British authorities have never pursued the matter. This is a clear indication that Britain's Home Office still considers Sealand to be outside their zone of control."

--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.

Re:Ruling requested..... by Shimbo · 2003-08-06 01:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's legal status was determined a long time ago

In their imagination maybe. Until it gets a seat at the UN, or is even recognised by a single real country it remains a joke.
Re:Ruling requested..... by AndroidCat · 2003-08-06 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's all very nice, but it makes the assumption that it had any soverenty to start with--especially when it's not even an island. Not even an artificial island built with land-fill.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Ruling requested..... by mr_luc · 2003-08-06 01:59 · Score: 1

Right, but when push comes to shove, 'Justice' goes out the window.

In this case, I think the official stance of Britain is that Sealand is a man-constructed object -- and as such, must be covered by the same laws as the only other man-constructed objects to ply the seas. (boats)

Is that somewhat ludicrous -- yes. But that's the way the chips would fall if push came to shove. They would rule that a man-created object CANNOT be it's own sovereign nation, regardless of how silly or arbitrary that sounds.

Britain doesn't do anything about Sealand mostly because it's such a small, harmless band of kooks, partly because of the unjustified hassle over who should deal with it and how long that would take, partly because the general public tends to side heavily with the romanticism that this situation conjurs up, and to a much, much, much, much lesser extent, because there is legal validity to their claim.

The bottom line is, though, that as soon as they stop being harmless kooks and start bringing ANY pressure whatsoever to bear against themselves, they go down. I mean, if worst came to absolute worst, the cheapest way for Britain to resolve this whole thing would be to send in the Commandos and take over the 'country'. Nobody fucks with the Commandos. (That's my American romanticism, probably, but it seems like the commandos are, in fact, 'the shit').

I need some pie now.
Re:Ruling requested..... by blibbleblobble · 2003-08-06 02:17 · Score: 1

"Although its legal status is unclear, Sealand lies within the territorial boundary of 10 miles claimed by England"

Similarly, England (or part thereof) lies within the territorial boundary of 10 miles claimed by Sealand.

Not that it matters
Re:Ruling requested..... by fishbowl · 2003-08-06 02:58 · Score: 1, Interesting

>It would be similar to the United States
>attempting to annex Cuba by extending the border
>a further 90 miles south.

We seem to have no problem establishing prison camps for our political prisoners there. To me, that has been among the most troubling aspects of the post-2001 world.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Ruling requested..... by russx2 · 2003-08-06 03:05 · Score: 1

Sealand's "rulers" basically know perfectly well they have no real claim to sovereignty - as is. The moment they cross the line by too big a margin, a small squad will be dispatched to chuck them off and that will be it.

They daren't do anything too illegal (under British laws), hence why they refuse to host extreme objectionable material.

Their plan seems to be (or rather, has been) to make little advances, pushing the boundry each time. A good example of this is the warning shots they fired off. This was a bit of a risk, but the odds were it was too little a "crime" for Britain to bother with - and they were right.

If they had fired at the stray ship, Britain would be all over them. But by playing it coy - merely firing off a few rounds - they've introduced an element of doubt into peoples minds. Why didn't Britain do anything? Sealand must be a legal country after all! And they'll use this when the inevitable court case arises. It's like with trademark breaches. If a company doesn't defend it's trademark as people abuse it, it's case is weakened if/when it eventually does reach court.
Re:Ruling requested..... by arkane1234 · 2003-08-06 03:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

It would be similar to the United States attempting to annex Cuba by extending the border a further 90 miles south.

Oddly enough, I can see that happening. The coast guard finds 1 too many ships with Cuban cigars and Bush sends a carpet bombing campaign for 3 weeks straight to "liberate the oppressed masses". This of course done concurrently with a law stating the waters are extended temporarily to 300 miles "in order to protect America from impending terrorism".

Hey, it could happen. I never thought in a million years that I'd see a time where a company is claiming ownership of Linux because of a couple lines of code, America occupying 2 other countries with the same ROE as Vietnam, and the rest of the world becoming more free than America.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Ruling requested..... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 03:42 · Score: 0

That is becuase our Naval base has been there since the 1890s. Well over a hundred years. We annexed durning the Spanish-American war, well before the time of Castro. It has nothing to due with post-2001
Re:Ruling requested..... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 03:51 · Score: 0

Actually, they were recognized by two countries. When the German investors took over Sealand, and then were taken prisoner by a counter-strike, the prince refused to release any of his prisoners, stating they were prisoners of war.

The governments of Germany and Belgium ended up sending official representatives to bail out their citizens. If Sealand were just a joke, they would have sent the representatives to the British government instead. This amounts to official recognition by two countries.
Re:Ruling requested..... by Darth_brooks · 2003-08-06 03:57 · Score: 1

Just a few other mentions of sealand from other sources:

When asked about the status of Sealand, the British Home Office (Britain's equivalent to the Department of Internal Affairs) has, for thirty years, referred people to the Foreign Office as Sealand wasn't considered part of the United Kingdom. Until the HavenCo announcement on June 5 last year.

Free radical

A paper discussing jurisdiction as it pertains to sealand.

This all goes back to jurisdiction. If you go by the ruling in the 25 November 1968 case, in which shots were fired from Sealand in warning towards ships of the British navy, then Sealand has a good case for sovereignty.

The court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory

A paper concerning abortion laws as they pertain to the EU. From 2000, but it does contain an interesting line.

For Home Office spokesman Tim Watkinson, the situation is clear: "The [United Kingdom] does not recognize Sealand as an independent state, it is within our territorial waters and as such subject to UK law."

As was laid out earlier, the island sits 7-10 miles off shore. It's "declaration of sovereignty" came in 1967, When territorial waters extended only to 3 miles. England would have had no authority until October 1st, 1987, when they moved their border to 12 miles. If we go by the 1968 ruling, England still has no rights over the island.

The fort itself was considered derilect, and as such open to claim.

This would have been prior to england extending it's territorial waters claim from 3 to 12 miles. International law forbids territory of another nation from being claimed simply by extending waters. I believe, though i have no links to back it, that the decision to move England's territorial waters out to 12 miles was based in part on preventing any further claims to small coastal islands, man made or otherwise. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

Overall this is a unique situation. Any legal preceedings would have to face an uphill climb to establish jurisdiction. If they can indeed prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Sealand does fall under English law, everything else becomes a mute point. Until such time as they can prove Sealand doesn't fit criteria as an independand nation, they have no jurisdiction.

--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Re:Ruling requested..... by Dun+Malg · 2003-08-06 04:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the official stance of Britain is that Sealand is a man-constructed object -- and as such, must be covered by the same laws as the only other man-constructed objects to ply the seas. (boats)
You may think that, but that's not the case. It could only be considered a ship if it was in some way moveable. It's no more a ship than is a load of rock towed out to a sand bar and dumped. It's a fixed emplacement that was built outside territorial limits and abandoned. It may not be recognized by the crown and/or parliament as a sovreign nation, but the courts have definitely ruled that it lies outside their jurisdiction. This is de facto sovreignty, which is all that matters.
Though I agree that, if they so desired, the british government could just waltz in there and say "ours. get off." and basically render the sovreignty issue moot. Posession is all that matters here, really.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:Ruling requested..... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 04:40 · Score: 0

... everything else becomes a mute point.
No, but it does become a moot point.
This and the common misuse of the phrase "begs the question" rank high on my list of grammatical pet peeves. Unfortunately, language evolves, and "begs the question" is taking on new meaning. I see "this is a mute point" altogether too much, and I fear, like "begs the question," this phrase will evolve to replace its correct usage.
Fortunately there will always remain us die-hards. :)
(Posting anonymously in order to avoid the wrath of even bigger Anal Retentive Grammar Nazis in case I've missed a comma in the above text.)
Re:Ruling requested..... by Shimbo · 2003-08-06 04:50 · Score: 1, Troll

Actually, they were recognized by two countries.The governments of Germany and Belgium ended up sending official representatives to bail out their citizens.

That is pure BS. The local consulate decided that the best way to safeguard its citizens was to humour the Sealand kooks by sending round the office junior. It's their job to protect German citizens abroad.

I could pull a gun on someone and demand to see a priest. If one comes running, it doesn't mean I'm the Pope.
Re:Ruling requested..... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
You may think that, but that's not the case. It could only be considered a ship if it was in some way moveable. It's no more a ship than is a load of rock towed out to a sand bar and dumped. It's a fixed emplacement that was built outside territorial limits and abandoned.

I suggest you read the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part V, Article 60, Paragraph 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."

Sealand has no territory. It therefore can make no claims to territorial waters. Therefore the UK's 12-mile claim is not overlapping with any valid claims. Therefore Sealand is within UK territorial waters and has been for decades.

Sealand has exactly two things on its side, one useless and one which has been to its advantage so far:
1. The collective wishful thinking of a lot of science fiction readers.
2. The inertia of a UK government that has not found it worth the hassle to go after some guys on a concrete pylon in the North Sea, especially when those guys are too wimpy to host anything more controversial than can easily be found in dozens of other countries, including the UK itself.
I'll let you figure out which is which.
--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:Ruling requested..... by elemental23 · 2003-08-06 07:10 · Score: 1

It would be similar to the United States attempting to annex Cuba by extending the border a further 90 miles south.

Not a bad idea, actually. We could finally start smoking their cigars again!

--
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
Re:Ruling requested..... by fishbowl · 2003-08-06 07:46 · Score: 1

Whether there is justification for the US to have a military presence in Cuba is not the issue, although I think it's a bizarre situation.

The issue is, how convenient it has become to put people into a prison camp on an island where civilians are not permitted to travel, no due process at all, just based on suspicion of a certain ideology.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Ruling requested..... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 08:33 · Score: 0

You haven't seen much of the legal world have you...
Re:Ruling requested..... by evilviper · 2003-08-06 09:53 · Score: 1

Until it gets a seat at the UN

There are plenty of countries without a seat at the UN. Please remember that the world existed long before the UN, and will exist long after. Claiming a country does not actually require the permission of some 3rd-party, just occupation.

or is even recognised by a single real country

And you don't consider the UK a "single real country"?

it remains a joke.

You seem to be the only joke here...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Ruling requested..... by evilviper · 2003-08-06 09:57 · Score: 1

Though I agree that, if they so desired, the british government could just waltz in there and say "ours. get off." and basically render the sovreignty issue moot. Posession is all that matters here, really.

Every country is soverign until another country invades... The fact that the US took over Iraq doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't really a country does it?

Maybe Sealand should try to join NATO ;-).

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Ruling requested..... by Darth_brooks · 2003-08-06 13:18 · Score: 1

There's a loophole for this as well.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted in 1982 and was "(almost universally) accepted on 16 November 1994"

Sealand's claims were made in 1967. I can't make up a law, then decide that something you did 35 years ago is now illegal and bring you up on charges of breaking the law i just made. I think the phrase is 'ex post facto.'

I can't declare an oil rig an independant nation now. I could 21 years ago.

You are right on one count. Sealand exists only because no one has found it worth their trouble to kick the folks off by force. But breaking out the lawyers would be a royal pain in the ass at this moment, especially if a barstool lawyer like myself can throw out this amny objections and points of contention by sitting at a laptop for ten minutes at a time.

--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Re:Ruling requested..... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 13:38 · Score: 1

I can't declare an oil rig an independant nation now. I could 21 years ago.

No you couldn't. Back then, you'd have to contend with 1958's "Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone," which says substantively the same thing. Territorial sea accrues to mainland and islands, and islands are described in that document as "naturally formed".

These are long-standing principles, and their purpose is quite clear (as I described in my previous message). Allowing artificial structures to form the basis of territorial claims at sea would make it possible to arbitrarily violate the principles of freedom of the high seas. Ever played Othello?

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:Ruling requested..... by Darth_brooks · 2003-08-06 14:10 · Score: 1

Does the 1982 UN convention superceed the 1958 ruling?

Out of this entire thread this is the first set of post's I've seen that have made a good challege on a strong legal basis.

Roy may still have some agument based on "de facto" recognition of soverignty, but that wouldn't hold up as well.

--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Re:Ruling requested..... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 14:27 · Score: 1

Does the 1982 UN convention superceed the 1958 ruling?

Yup. From Article 311:

1. This Convention shall prevail, as between States Parties, over the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 29 April 1958.

It's worth bearing in mind that these multilateral treaties have primary force among signatory nations. Not being recognized as a sovereign state, Sealand would never have been invited to sign. However they take on a normative force globally once participation becomes sufficiently widespread.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Re:Ruling requested..... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 15:39 · Score: 0

Still, history has not been kind to governments (such as that of the Taliban) which are not generally recognized.
Re:Ruling requested..... by evilviper · 2003-08-06 16:42 · Score: 1

Fair Enough.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Help your friends at Sealand! by mblase · 2003-08-06 01:13 · Score: 5, Funny

They're short on money, but I'm sure someone would be willing to send them a few million to keep afloat.

They're just another victim of the dot-com fallout, really. Yet another company that completely missed the boat.

I mean, their business directors must really be lost at sea as to how to resolve these problems.

Perhaps they'd succeed with a new software strategy? Say, pier-to-pier filesharing?

Oh, I kill me....

Re:Help your friends at Sealand! by Zak3056 · 2003-08-06 01:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh, I kill me....

I hope you finish that particular task soon, the puns are killing me!

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

Could I Get a Bunch of My Red-Neck Cousins.... by bayers · 2003-08-06 01:31 · Score: 3, Funny

get them liquored up and invade Sealand?

What would happen?

Re:Could I Get a Bunch of My Red-Neck Cousins.... by Alan+Partridge · 2003-08-06 01:53 · Score: 1

They'd all end up gangbanging the smallest man on the boat?

--
That was classic intercourse!
Re:Could I Get a Bunch of My Red-Neck Cousins.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:55 · Score: 0

You'd probably be in violation of international law and then the British will give the Bush administration "proof" that you are trying to buy nukes, thus prompting Bush to send the marines in to make you dead.
Re:Could I Get a Bunch of My Red-Neck Cousins.... by theLOUDroom · 2003-08-06 02:32 · Score: 1

You'd probably get shot.

Sealand was founded by a WWII vet.

You wouldn't be the first one to try though. Years ago, some guys from Geramny came over and took over the island, and held his son hostage. Prince ? then rented a helicopter, got some guns and took the island back by force. He held the Germans captive until Germany sent diplomats to negotiate for their release.

Basically, I wouldn't try it if I were you.

All the above info is from memeory, so it's probably not 100% accurate.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Could I Get a Bunch of My Red-Neck Cousins.... by mdielmann · 2003-08-06 02:45 · Score: 1

Well, should you succeed, and not suffer the international outcry for attacking another 'esteemed' sovereign nation, you could live on a rusted-out fortress the size of a basketball court, rather than in some small number of rusted-out trailer homes in a trailer court. I'm not sure if that counts as a step up, but you would still have access to Jerry Springer style TV...

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:Could I Get a Bunch of My Red-Neck Cousins.... by raju1kabir · 2003-08-06 05:23 · Score: 1

Sealand was founded by a WWII vet.

Ooh, scary. Don't know where on earth I could find my own equal but opposite vet, given their tremendous scarcity. Oh yeah, I do. For $50 a day I can hire a Vietnam vet at the shelter to paint my house. For another $50 perhaps he'd help me launch an attack against two lunatics on an oil platform.

You wouldn't be the first one to try though. Years ago, some guys from Geramny came over and took over the island, and held his son hostage. Prince ? then rented a helicopter, got some guns and took the island back by force. He held the Germans captive until Germany sent diplomats to negotiate for their release.

This just shows that you need to have enough backup cash to rent two helicopters.

And the characterization about Germany sending diplomats is absurd. They sent a junior consul (the person who does prison visits and tours museums) to remind the German nationals that they were subject to UK law and Germany wasn't going to be able to help them if they insisted on getting into firefights while in the UK.

--
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS

New place for libertopia? by Thinkit3 · 2003-08-06 01:32 · Score: 1

Where do geeks go now for libertopia? Maybe an Aleutian island they can buy? Isn't it sad that every land mass is claimed by some country...why not just let one be a libertopia??? That's how it started.

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist

Re:New place for libertopia? by nat5an · 2003-08-06 02:09 · Score: 3, Informative

At last count, I believe Indonesia had 11,000 islands, some 7000 of which are uninhabited. I remember reading recently that they just "discovered" 1000 more islands that they didn't know were part of their country. My advice -- go to south east Asia and find an undiscovered island.

--
Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...
Re:New place for libertopia? by Suidae · 2003-08-06 03:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

So if land is unclaimed and not in the territorial boundaries of an existing recongnized country, can anyone claim it?

What if its underwater? If I had the money and the technology, could I go find an undersea mount in the pacific where the seafloor comes up near the surface and build an underwater 'city', claiming that land as my own country?

Making this relevant to Sealand as a man-made object, what if I built large towers in my city that extended out of the water? They would have to be part of my territory too. Seems to me that Sealand is actually a submerged country with a couple of large towers to make living there a bit more convienant for regular humans.

I'm really curious what would be a recognized claim as a soverin nation.
Re:New place for libertopia? by JoeD · 2003-08-06 03:52 · Score: 1

Not EVERY land mass. While there are (I think) seven nations that have territorial claims on Antarctica, there is still a great honking chunk of that continent that's still unclaimed.

Unfortunately, it's unclaimed for a reason. The environment isn't just harsh, it's actively hostile to human life. You'd have to import virtually everything in order to stay alive.

But if you had the cash, you could outfit a colony and set up shop on an unclaimed bit of land.
Re:New place for libertopia? by mr_sas · 2003-08-06 04:20 · Score: 1

some guy proposed doing something similar on an atol in the pacific ocean (iirc) I can't remember what it was called now. ts probably on here somewhere. I'd assume anyone could claim it.
Re:New place for libertopia? by bjtuna · 2003-08-06 06:04 · Score: 2, Informative

The Antarctic Treaty of 1959/1961 neither recognizes nor disputes the claims made by those 7 (or any other) nation. The United States and Russia both reserve the right to make territorial claims. See the CIA World Factbook for more info.

Short story is, you'd catch a lot of shit from about 30 countries if you tried setting up an independent nation on Antarctica.

--
Intercarve Networks, LLC
Re:New place for libertopia? by Some+Dumbass... · 2003-08-06 08:18 · Score: 1

My advice -- go to south east Asia and find an undiscovered island.

An undiscovered island with a T3 line. :)

Maybe the professor can build one with some twigs and coconuts?
Re:New place for libertopia? by Fear+the+Clam · 2003-08-06 10:50 · Score: 1

Thomas Perry had a few ideas about creating an island from scratch and getting recognized in his comic crime novel Island.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. by BlackSabbath · 2003-08-06 01:39 · Score: 1

Excellent point.

If HavenCo seeks to avoid litigation by claiming to be outside of any RIAA jurisdiction, then it follows that HavenCo has no legal recourse to defend itself against the RIAA.

God its small by isorox · 2003-08-06 01:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Every time I fly over the Thames Estuary I look out for sealand, I've never seen it. Does anyone know if it really exists?

SCBA, not SCUBA by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:44 · Score: 1, Informative

When they first came on the scene, they claimed to not need a fire suppression system due to the fact that their entire facility had been flooded with nitrogen, thus requiring technicians to wear scuba gear to install new equipment.

SCBA, since they're not underwater. As to the claim re nitrogen- from a practical standpoint, sealing rooms is virtually impossible, and gasses like to disperse. From a safety standpoint, less than 14%(I think?) oxygen is considered an environment that is classified as Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health(or whatever the OSHA term is).

I'd be far more inclined to believe they have a fire suppression system and SCBA emergency stations(as is required by law in many cases).

That isn't right... by aking137 · 2003-08-06 01:47 · Score: 1

Can't be...

From this article: "LONDON (Reuters) -- Microsoft, the world's largest software company, announced today that it will move its headquarters to the world's smallest nation, the Principality of Sealand." ... "According to a company spokesman, in order to escape the Justice Department's breakup, the software giant will legally move its headquarters to the tiny offshore jurisdiction, though the actual staff will remain in Redmond, WA, because space is at a premium on the tiny platform a few miles outside of British territorial waters in the English Channel."

Re:That isn't right... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 01:59 · Score: 0

in order to escape the Justice Department's breakup,

What breakup? The DOJ sucks Bill's dick whenever he tells them to.

What a way to kill a career by Fjord · 2003-08-06 01:55 · Score: 1

If I were a CEO, I'd just jump all over the opportunity to hire a CTO that blabs company laundry to the press after they leave.

In bizarro land.

--
-no broken link

Re:What a way to kill a career by beebware · 2003-08-06 05:18 · Score: 1

Problem is - what country would they prosecute him under? Sealand claims it a seperate nation, yet the UK doesn't recognise it as such: therefore the whole legal situation gets a bit "muddy".
Re:What a way to kill a career by Fjord · 2003-08-06 06:02 · Score: 1

It's not a matter of prosecution, it's a matter of when this guy tries to find a job, epople are going to remember him as a media whistleblower. I'd understand if there were illegal activity going on and blowing a whistle, but giving financial details of an ex-company to the press is not a good hiring indicator to me. There is no way I would let this guy be a CTO again. Even LAN admin is risky.

--
-no broken link
Re:What a way to kill a career by rdl · 2003-08-06 06:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

There is fraudulent business activity to the extent of criminality, which is why it is made public.

The information I have made public is entirely from public sources, so please read the defcon talk before making assumptions.

I've certainly had no shortage of work since leaving HavenCo, and am well respected in the security and networking communities.
Re:What a way to kill a career by Fjord · 2003-08-06 07:15 · Score: 1

my bad. apologies tendered.

--
-no broken link
Re:What a way to kill a career by rdl · 2003-08-06 07:33 · Score: 1

It is a big problem, honestly...I'm worried particularly about keeping customer information private during all this to the extent possible...which ironically was one of the proximal causes of this mess.
Re:What a way to kill a career by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 15:37 · Score: 0

HavenCo, as an organization, seems to have been something of a serial liar. I do hope you yourself managed to avoid issuing any spectacular false claims when serving in your (former) official capacity.

But I guess it's likely not to matter either way, since there's no obvious court in which clients could sue HavenCo, and it sounds like no clients can claim to have lost much money anyways.

Most definitely Halon. by Ayanami+Rei · 2003-08-06 02:07 · Score: 1

[n/t]

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Petoria by TheShadow · 2003-08-06 02:15 · Score: 0, Offtopic

They should move their stuff to Petoria... I hear the queen there is like Hillary Clinton... only without the penis.

--

--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."

Re:Petoria by kevin_conaway · 2003-08-06 04:05 · Score: 1

At last, someone quotes Family guy!

Why the sudden reversal from Ryan Lackey? by djtack · 2003-08-06 02:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

While I'm not surprised that HavenCo is in trouble, I find it weird just one month ago there was a slashdot headline proclaming HavenCo Doing Well. And Lackey himself posted some interesting comments about his upcoming DecCon talk. So rdl, if you're out there, what's changed?

Re:Why the sudden reversal from Ryan Lackey? by rdl · 2003-08-06 02:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Different YEAR.

My Defcon 11 talk describes the problems and why I've gone public (I have more responsibility to the public than to HavenCo, once management begins to engage in fraud)

I'll be at Linuxworld Expo today, if anyone wants to talk about this...should be easy to spot. (I'm on BART right now)

I'm posting an in-depth story for slashdot in a day or so, using objective proof of my claims, so there won't be any more "it is this way" "no it isn't" "yes it is" press release communication :)

I couldn't help but laugh.. by CompWerks · 2003-08-06 02:31 · Score: 1

When I read the line "25 year old Lackey"

--
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.

Oh Please...... by DesScorp · 2003-08-06 02:33 · Score: 1

Is anyone really shocked this company is going under? Let's see....let's start a company whose aim is to make money by flaunting the laws of othr countries by offering you a place where you can do pretty much anything for a price. Then let's taunt said countries in the press . Then headquarter that company on a glorified gun turret in the north sea, while "Prince Roy" makes decrees in a "country" about as big as a basketball court....

Yeah, the millions should be flowing in any day now.

I'm only surprised at two things.....that Britain hasn't sent Royal Marines to storm this place and kick out that nutcase, and that people actually thought this business would work in the first place.

And since when is a relativly small man-made object a "country"?

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Re:Oh Please...... by smcavoy · 2003-08-06 02:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Sending royal marines into a "sovereign" nation would be a violation international law, oh wait never mind.
Re:Oh Please...... by pclminion · 2003-08-06 04:30 · Score: 1

You moron, did you even READ anything? One of the biggest reasons the company was going under was because it's restrictions on content were even more restrictive than US law, because the owners were unwilling to be seen as "anarchists." Why don't they have customers? Because it's easier to host the content on US soil!
I was there, I saw his talk. He's a good guy. These people are not "flaunting the laws of other countries." They are trying to provide a "Haven" (duh) where certain kinds of content can be hosted without fear of reprisal by backward, fascist-style governments.
STFU, you uninformed idiot.
Re:Oh Please...... by DesScorp · 2003-08-06 05:02 · Score: 1

"You moron, did you even READ anything?"
The whole thing. And several other articles on HavenCo. And several articles on Sealand.

"Why don't they have customers? Because it's easier to host the content on US soil!"

Umm, it's easier to host in fucking Zambia than to do it this way. Of COURSE it's easier to host in the US.

"These people are not "flaunting the laws of other countries.""

Setting up a company to host sites to escape the grasp of other governments isn't flaunting their laws? This was clearly Lackey's intent, even if he wasn't allowed to follow through.

"They are trying to provide a "Haven" (duh) where certain kinds of content can be hosted without fear of reprisal by backward, fascist-style governments."

Fascists...you mean like, all other major governments? Because that's who HavenCo wanted to shield potential clients from. This is a company that was trying to attract pyramid schemes and copyright violaters from the start. That was their core business plan. It was doomed from the get-go, like it or not, admit it or not.

"STFU, you uninformed idiot"
I wouldn't give you the pleasure, fuckwad. If you want to support Anarchy-Utopian schemes, go right ahead. But you're a fool for believing something like this could EVER work, and I hope no one is ever naive enough to give you their money.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Haven Undersea Defenses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 02:33 · Score: 1, Funny

"Friggin Sharks With Friggin Lasers on their heads"

Re:I dont know by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 02:51 · Score: 0

> BTW how can mods mod grandparent flamebait??

because [s]?he has no sense of humor?

location of sealand, and maps. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 03:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

for all those who want to know where sealand is, i found maps.

on the sealand website it lists the location as:
51 53' 42" N;
01 28' 51" E;

which is roughly ten miles southeast of Ipswitch, or twenty miles northeast of london.

the only place I could find a map of that area was on this site, where it is simply labelled "rough twr":

zoomed in map

zooming out we can see it's location relative to the coast:

zoomed out map

Re:location of sealand, and maps. by Al-Hala · 2003-08-06 16:25 · Score: 1

That's the place. See this tidbit from the Official Sealand Site:

"Arising from some of this historical background are also to be found other sites, some referring to Sealand's designation as 'Rough Tower' [or 'Roughs Tower' or even 'Rough's Tower'], the original name(s) of the Island Fort when it was established and occupied by the United Kingdom as a part of its national defences during the Second World War.

Although these historical designations became inappropriate following the abandonment by the UK of its wartime fortifications which were located in International waters some 55 years ago and by Sealand's subsequent declaration of independence nearly 35 years ago, there remain those who choose to ignore this reality."

You may need to look a bit further up the coast... by Dan-DAFC · 2003-08-06 03:04 · Score: 1

See this map.

--
Suck figs.

You, sir, are an asshat by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 03:08 · Score: 0

Halon gas is way way way to expensive to fill an entire room with. It's used almost exclusively as a fire suppressant. Oh, and it's production was banned in 1993 under the Montreal Protocol. Please FOAD.

bored bored bored... by magarity · 2003-08-06 03:11 · Score: 2, Funny

another problem was the Sealand family's tinkering with the network connection

Well, duh. Have you seen a picture of the place? It's two concrete pilings with a construction shack on top. WTF else is there to do after someone puts in some server racks with a fibre optic network uplink?

Hillary Clinton without the penis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 03:29 · Score: 0

" I hear the queen there is like Hillary Clinton... only without the penis."

What do you mean? Hillary hasn't been near one of those things since Chelsea was conceived.

Re:Hillary Clinton without the penis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 08:28 · Score: 0

She's never been near one. I believe that conception could have been accomplished by a turkey baster.
~~~

DefCon slides by caffeinex36 · 2003-08-06 03:36 · Score: 1

Anyone have the defcon slides handy? I looked at them on the plane home, but let someone borrow my CD. They are EXCELLENT slides, too bad I missed the presentation. I'm sure the one I went to instead was not worth it.

Re:DefCon slides by rdl · 2003-08-06 04:18 · Score: 4, Informative

http://www.metacolo.com/papers/dc11-havenco/

Re: Mein Herr, Sie sind ein Arschhut by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 03:42 · Score: 0

There's nothing worse than an asshat who can't even spell correctly calling someone else an asshat because they don't keep tabs on the price of halon.

to != too, you douchenozzle.

Tinkering with network connection by CracktownHts · 2003-08-06 03:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Picturing a fat limey with brown teeth, clicking on one of those "your internet connection is not secure!" banner ads, as black-clad geeks gesticulate wildly in the background.

1) ma'am, not sir. by Ayanami+Rei · 2003-08-06 04:09 · Score: 1

2) the person I replied to was AC/Score 0
3) he was talking about an OLD server room
4) he was talking about a fire supression system that required safety interlock

You are the asshat. HAND.

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Re:1) ma'am, not sir. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 06:17 · Score: 0

Do you do anal?

Obligatory Homestarrunner reference :) by Sim9 · 2003-08-06 04:26 · Score: 1

>> The king of sealand must be a quirky fellow indeed

Sorry, but for some inexplicable reason, that brings up images of The King of Town from Homestarrunner.

Although, from the sound of things, they have more in common than meets the eye ;)

Mark of Non-Excellence by virg_mattes · 2003-08-06 04:45 · Score: 1

> Excellent point. If HavenCo seeks to avoid litigation by claiming to be outside of any RIAA jurisdiction, then it follows that HavenCo has no legal recourse to defend itself against the RIAA.

Incorrect, for exactly the same reasonn that the RIAA cannot hack Japanese companies with impunity. Japanese companies do not operate in any area where the RIAA (or the laws backing it) have any jurisdiction, so international trade treaties take over. The same treaties would allow HavenCo to ask NATO or the UN for recourse, and it could legitimately charge the RIAA, and by extension the U.S., with an act of war.

Virg

Re:Mark of Non-Excellence by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 10:48 · Score: 0

Ohhh nooo! Sealand could charge the U.S. with an act of war! What if the U.S. turned around and said "Hey, you're right, we declare war!" Nobody was able to stop them* from attacking Iraq, so I'm sure that a worldwide protest would do nothing to stop the bomber that would appear in Sealand air space a few hours later.
* I would say us, but I sure didn't vote for that moron.

6 Feet Under by axlrosen · 2003-08-06 05:28 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Did you look at his picture? Who knew that the creepy guy from 6 Feet Under worked at HavenCo?

Meta Excuse by Citizen+of+Earth · 2003-08-06 05:52 · Score: 1

Oh, and 9/11, of course.

Oh, that is so passe. You're supposed to blame "global economic conditions" and wink while saying it.

Re:You may need to look a bit further up the coast by Chelloveck · 2003-08-06 06:02 · Score: 1

So when does Sealand attack its neighbor, intending to lose so they can get foreign aid?

--
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.

How to Spell SOVEREIGN! by sudog · 2003-08-06 06:21 · Score: 1

Alright, you DOPES. Do ANY of you know how to spell sovereign? How the hell hard is it to just visit dictionary.com and look it up?!

Cripes! Reading Slashdot's like being stuck in a special-ed classroom sometimes...

Re:How to Spell SOVEREIGN! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 18:40 · Score: 0

Reminds me of the old quote:
Arguing on slashdot is like running in the special olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Satellite link and Coneheads by nacturation · 2003-08-06 07:17 · Score: 1

Why waste the time and money sending Marines anywhere? Just cut the link between Sealand and the internet. They have a backup satellite link, but that's slooow

Some backup. One sniper shot from half a mile away and that satellite becomes a useless hunk of garbage. Somehow I don't think that they have a spare satellite kicking around in just such an emergency.

Plus, with Mr. Conehead no longer there, the network's going to go down the one toilet they have.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.

How to demolish Sealand by billstewart · 2003-08-06 07:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, no, you've got it all wrong. It would be warfare against someone who may be a foreign prince but is also a British subject, and that's just not cricket, and might be actionable in one of the EU or international courts.

The way to get rid of Sealand is by *accident*. "Ooops, that barge of barrels of petrol slipped off our tugboat in the storm and it's headed right for you and we just *can't* control it. Terribly sorry..."

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:How to demolish Sealand by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 11:45 · Score: 0

No, no, you've got it all wrong. It would be warfare against someone who may be a foreign prince but is also a British subject, and that's just not cricket, and might be actionable in one of the EU or international courts.

That's just silly. If he resists arrest with lethal force then he risks getting killed. That's exactly the same as for anyone else.
Re:How to demolish Sealand by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 15:14 · Score: 0

Easiest way is to send a few divers to bomb the place --- the same as the French did with the Greenpeace flagship, the Rainbow Warrior.

The problems that the French had were: (1) it was pretty obvious who did it, and (2) one person on the ship was killed (because he went back to get his camera equipment... which was foolish but not as dumb as it sounds, since he thought the ship was going down due to accident, rather than sabotage).

Anyway, I'm sure that 007 could figure out a way to remove Sealand while avoiding these two problems.

DEAR FRIEND, by nacturation · 2003-08-06 07:39 · Score: 1

I am Ryan Lackey, the ex-CTO of Sealand. I apologize for the nature of this letter, but I am assured that your confidential manner is paramount to the successful conclusion of this transaction. I have the sum of $25,000,000 (TWENTY FIVE MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS) stored in the closet of Sealand with no way to get it out. I need a safe partner abroad to help me transfer these funds.

.

.

.

(insert rest of joke here)

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.

Gambling was the other big market by billstewart · 2003-08-06 07:55 · Score: 1

Lack of IP laws provided one potential market - there'd been pirate radio running off Sealand in the 70s, why not pirate music and movies today? But the real source of potential revenue isn't selling expensive access to free content, it's gambling, running Internet casinos from a jurisdiction that doesn't have gambling laws and doesn't have treaties with the US allowing the US to shut them down, and doesn't have treaties with the UK allowing the UK to tax them. The Havenco folks had experience with that business in the Caribbean, but Caribbean telecom infrastructure really sucks, whereas once you've built a short connection to shore, the UK and (a bit farther away) NL have all the connectivity you could want.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Gambling was the other big market by evilviper · 2003-08-06 10:16 · Score: 1

it's gambling, running Internet casinos from a jurisdiction that doesn't have gambling laws and doesn't have treaties with the US

How do you think they would be able to do that? Once a charge for "Sealand Gambling" showed up on a credit-card bill and a customer complained, no credit card company would allow any more money to be transfered there.

Internet gambling wouldn't be very successful if you had to mail cash or money-orders back and forth...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Gambling was the other big market by billstewart · 2003-08-06 14:24 · Score: 1

Why would the customer complain? They're getting their services from the casino. And Credit card companies will let you charge money at on-land casinos.... Also, at least one of the casinos operating from Sealand is gold-based - if you use a credit card, it's to buy gold, and then you can gamble with the gold or get it shipped to you.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Re:Gambling was the other big market by evilviper · 2003-08-06 16:17 · Score: 1

Why would the customer complain?

Because they lost thousands of dollars and don't want to pay-up... It's happened before. People in jurisdictions where gambling is illegial have put a stop-payment on their credit-card bill from an online casino, and the credit card companies comply because gambling is illegial in their jurisdiction.

I don't know where the issue currently stands... I believe about 6 months to 1 year ago this issue was heading to court in the US. I've never heard anything about in since, not that I've been trying to follow it.

if you use a credit card, it's to buy gold, and then you can gamble with the gold or get it shipped to you.

It's a shell-game that a government would see through very quickly. The credit card companies will quickly stop all billing by that company, even if it's offically for buying gold.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

5) ... by Ayanami+Rei · 2003-08-06 08:20 · Score: 1

6) only on Thursdays after Law and Order.
7) profit!!!

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Minerva in the South Pacific by billstewart · 2003-08-06 08:23 · Score: 1

You could find a place which is unclaimed and _almost_ above water and do some construction work to make it at least a foot above high tide or whatever the official standards are for being _dirt_, which you can therefore get recognized as a country. A group of libertarians did this back in the 1970s with the Minerva Shoals, about 250 miles from Fiji and 400 from Tonga. Six months later the King of Tonga invaded and stole their country. I think they were still really living in boats at the time, eating a lot of fish.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Minerva in the South Pacific by Maneki+Neko · 2003-08-06 11:43 · Score: 1

Was that the same King of Tonga who, like other micronation royalty herein discussed, made a notoriously poor business decision?

--
. . .
Proverbs for Paranoids #4: *You* hide, They seek.

Re:You may need to look a bit further up the coast by jafiwam · 2003-08-06 08:29 · Score: 1

That's been done.

Nuclear Sub by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-06 09:03 · Score: 0

The only practical way to build a truly solid "data haven" is to somehow (don't ask me!) acquire a nuclear sub w/ a fully-equipped ICBM arsenal. Basically hold the entire world at gunpoint with it, obtaining free food/fuel/internet connectivity in the process. Possibly take over a poorly armed land nation. Amass followers. etc.

Topic of Censorship? by s-orbital · 2003-08-06 10:28 · Score: 1

I'm just curious how another company (albeit a 1337one) on the brink of folding is considered censorship? I hardly see the connection here...

--
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open

Back in the UK by fm6 · 2003-08-06 10:43 · Score: 1

The con artist who's squatting on this abandoned radar platform and calls himself "Prince of Sealand" says that he's not part of the UK. But not a single government or international entity recognizes this. There's one ambiguous legal decision that the "Prince" like to interpret as official recognition, but that's it. The UK authorities have never pressed the point. But if they decided that illegal stuff was happening there, they probably would. Or they could just go in, seize all the HavenCo servers, arrest everybody in sight, and blow up the platform. Then let the lawyers sort it out. Even if it turned out that they exceeded their authority (and it probably wouldn't) it would be the end of Sealand.

Bogus nations are a dime a dozen: The Republic of Texas, the Kingdom of Patagonia, you name it. They have nothing backing them up, no army, no political following, no external recognition, not even citizens. All they have is some weird legal theory that nobody outide accepts. If you want to trust your data to somebody like that, then maybe you'll want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge -- I can get it for you real cheap!

Social Contract by digitaltraveller · 2003-08-06 11:52 · Score: 1

A social contract is the foundation of a democracy. One of the problems we are faced with now is that new social contracts are hard to come by.
If a group of people wants to get up and create their own country it's generally discouraged even by western 'democratic' countries. This is why space travel is so appealing to our hearts and minds.
The idea that we can one day go terraform Mars; or live a Cpt. Kirk-esque life of exploration, battle and the shagging of hot alien babes.

email broken by LaMaia · 2003-08-06 12:12 · Score: 1

Your email address seems to be broken. venona.com claims "User unknown".

Lunatic businesses? by xixax · 2003-08-06 17:13 · Score: 1

Who in the hell is going to do business with some lunatic who fancies himself as the "Prince" of a gun platform?

That sounds like anyone with venture capital.

1. lunatice prince with a gun platform

2. ???

3. Profit!

Xix.

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

OT: naval base by SEAL · 2003-08-06 22:15 · Score: 1

Actually we never annexed Guantanamo Bay from Cuba. The U.S. Naval base there was obtained (and paid for) through a lease agreement with Cuba in 1903, and updated to perpetual lease status in a treaty in 1934. It can only be nullified if both countries agree, or if the U.S. vacates the area.

These days, it is a source of great irritation to Castro's government that Cuba ever signed such an agreement with the U.S. That's why our Marines down there are always at a high state of readiness.

http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/gazette/History_64-82/H ISCHP3.HTM

305 comments