HavenCo In Trouble?

Evil Al writes "News.com is reporting on the talk given by Ryan Lackey, former CTO of HavenCo, at DefCon. Lackey claims that the company is teetering on the edge due to internal upheaval and lack of customers. Oh, and 9/11, of course."

Comments

acceptable use policy

[Carbon Unit 549]

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.

All about the price

[mcgroarty]

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:i think...

[azzy]

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...

[filledwithloathing]

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.

Re:Havenco an interesting case...

[deblassc]

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:i think...

[filledwithloathing]

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.