Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HavenCo In Trouble?

Posted by timothy on from the naysayers-revenge dept.

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."

73 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. i think... by jeffy124 · · 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.
    1. Re:i think... by acehole · · 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!
    2. Re:i think... by Zeinfeld · · 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/
    3. Re:i think... by azzy · · 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.

    4. Re:i think... by filledwithloathing · · 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
    5. Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:i think... by garcia · · 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.

    7. Re:i think... by Deusy · · 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

    8. Re:i think... by arkane1234 · · 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!
    9. Re:i think... by CaptainStormfield · · 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
    10. Re:i think... by slipgun · · 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
    11. Re:i think... by filledwithloathing · · 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
    12. Re:i think... by raju1kabir · · 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
    13. Re:i think... by raju1kabir · · 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
    14. Re:i think... by Scyber · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    15. Re:i think... by Anonymous Coward · · 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... :)

  2. RIAA Air Force by AtariAmarok · · 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.
    1. Re:RIAA Air Force by nsda's_deviant · · 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.

  3. Havenco an interesting case... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    1. Re:Havenco an interesting case... by goraknotsteve · · 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?
    2. Re:Havenco an interesting case... by deblassc · · 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?

  4. It was only a matter of time... by joshv · · 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

    1. Re:It was only a matter of time... by Karamchand · · 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.

    2. Re:It was only a matter of time... by grennis · · 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.

    3. Re:It was only a matter of time... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    4. Re:It was only a matter of time... by Kamel+Jockey · · 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!
    5. Re:It was only a matter of time... by Blue+Stone · · 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
    6. Re:It was only a matter of time... by sxltrex · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you happen to read the article?

      You're new here, aren't you? ;-)

    7. Re:It was only a matter of time... by sql*kitten · · 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.

    8. Re:It was only a matter of time... by Asmodean · · 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.
  5. no wonder they're in trouble! by drgroove · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Even their ex-CTO was a Lackey!

  6. Re:Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The popular cracks site, cracks.am is hosted on HavenCo.

  7. poltiics? by freedommatters · · 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
  8. acceptable use policy by Carbon+Unit+549 · · 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 &

  9. Bad Publicity? by StickMang · · 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
    1. Re:Bad Publicity? by dasmegabyte · · 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
    2. Re:Bad Publicity? by AndroidCat · · 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.
  10. A successful site hosted at HavenCo/Sealand by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    1. Re:A successful site hosted at HavenCo/Sealand by Anonymous Coward · · 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.
  11. no solution to legal responsibilities by mblase · · 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?

    1. Re:no solution to legal responsibilities by Kubla+Khan · · 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"
    2. Re:no solution to legal responsibilities by wfberg · · 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
  12. Business and lunatics by duffbeer703 · · 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
    1. Re:Business and lunatics by mr_luc · · 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.

    2. Re:Business and lunatics by Tackhead · · 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!

    3. Re:Business and lunatics by arkane1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What in the hell is a moistened bint?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    4. Re:Business and lunatics by jbert · · 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.

  13. All about the price by mcgroarty · · 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.

    1. Re:All about the price by bill_mcgonigle · · 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)
    2. Re:All about the price by mcgroarty · · 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.

  14. SARS by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Funny
    Oh, and 9/11, of course.

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

  15. Ruling requested..... by Darth_brooks · · 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.
    1. Re:Ruling requested..... by Shimbo · · 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.

    2. Re:Ruling requested..... by AndroidCat · · 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.
    3. Re:Ruling requested..... by arkane1234 · · 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!
    4. Re:Ruling requested..... by Dun+Malg · · 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.
    5. Re:Ruling requested..... by raju1kabir · · 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
  16. Help your friends at Sealand! by mblase · · 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....

    1. Re:Help your friends at Sealand! by Zak3056 · · 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?
  17. Re:Not worth the money... by admbws · · 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!

  18. Could I Get a Bunch of My Red-Neck Cousins.... by bayers · · Score: 3, Funny

    get them liquored up and invade Sealand?

    What would happen?

  19. God its small by isorox · · 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?

  20. Re:New place for libertopia? by nat5an · · 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...
  21. Why the sudden reversal from Ryan Lackey? by djtack · · 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?

    1. Re:Why the sudden reversal from Ryan Lackey? by rdl · · 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 :)

  22. Re:Oh Please...... by smcavoy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sending royal marines into a "sovereign" nation would be a violation international law, oh wait never mind.

  23. location of sealand, and maps. by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  24. bored bored bored... by magarity · · 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?

  25. Re:New place for libertopia? by Suidae · · 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.

  26. Re:DefCon slides by rdl · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  27. Re:New place for libertopia? by bjtuna · · 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
  28. Re:What a way to kill a career by rdl · · 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.

  29. How to demolish Sealand by billstewart · · 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