Has HavenCo's Data Haven Shut Down?

secmartin writes "HavenCo, the self-proclaimed data haven located on the micronation Sealand, appears to be offline. Their website is down, and there have been no announcements from either HavenCo or Sealand. HavenCo has been covered here before; it was mostly known for offering hosting of content that might be illegal in other countries. Does anyone have news about what happened to them?"

Comments

Sea Boundaries

[telchine]

Hosting on Sealand was always under the juristiction of the United Kingdom. The territorial waters of the UK were increased to 12NM in 1987. You can't legally host content in Sealand that isn't legal in the UK. If they were suggesting otherwise then maybe Trading Standards have raided them?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[morgan_greywolf]

But Sealand is 'grandfathered in'. There's a controversy surrounding it, but at the end of the day the 'sovereignty' of Sealand is not tested in court.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Linker3000]

This could go on all day - I'll get popcorn.

From the Sealand Web site...

"On 1 October, 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles. The previous day, Prince Roy declared the extension of Sealandâ(TM)s territorial waters to be a like 12 nautical miles, so that right of way from the open sea to the Principality would not be blocked by British claimed waters. No treaty has been signed between the U. K. 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 the Principalityâ(TM)s sovereignty was safely âoegrandfatheredâ in. Britain has no more right to Sealandâ(TM)s territory than Sealand has to the territory of the British coastline that falls within its claimed 12 mile arc."

Re:Sea Boundaries

[secmartin]

A British court even ruled that Sealand was outside its jurisdiction in 1968; so according to international law, the "grandfathered in" approach might work. But since there are at most a dozen people on the platform, and no other country has recognized them, I bet the entire platform might just be used for target practice by several navy's if they are ever found to host terrorist websites...

Re:Sea Boundaries

[swillden]

By the letter of the law, Sealand has it right, I think.

However, what this fails to consider is that the force of law is rooted in exactly that -- force. Given the UK's possession of military and police forces which Sealand lacks there's not much question about what would happen if the UK decided to push its claim.

Sealand could try to appeal to the World Court, but since none of the UN membership recognizes Sealand as a sovereign nation, the court would ignore it, and there the issue would end.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[theaveng]

I don't think a government can overtake another government's land simply by claiming an extension of water rights.

The government of New Jersey tried that tactic a few years ago in order to justify the building of an oil platform on the Delaware River. The NJ government claimed they own half the river and can do whatever they wish. The government of Delaware objected, and after digging through old documents dating to the 1600s, it was determined that Delaware controls the river adjacent to its capitol. The intervening birth of the United States had not changed or altered that prior claim. Therefore New Jersey's government was blocked by the Delaware government.*

If the territory of Sealand has prior claim to its land and local coastal waters, the UK cannot simply "take over" the place by whim, and I'm sure the EU version of the Supreme Court would hold this to be true. Sealand remains an independent government by previous land/water claims.

*
* The heart of the argument is that NJ wants oil and Delaware wants to protect "their" river from environmental destruction. Two governments with two goals are moving in seemingly opposite directions. The irony is that both governments are run by the same party (Democrats), and yet they still can't get along with one another.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Nursie]

Last time th British tried to take Sealand by force, they lost. The ruler of Sealand saw them off with a shotgun.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[ultranova]

There's a controversy surrounding it, but at the end of the day the 'sovereignty' of Sealand is not tested in court.

Sovereignty is independent of any court. That's what sovereignty means: you are not beholden to or dependent on another power. As such, the test of sovereignty is quite simple: can you fight off any attempt to deny your sovereignty ? If yes, you're sovereign; if not, you're not.

Since Sealand quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Great Britain, they're not sovereign. They might gain some manoeuvring room by skilful use of legal tactics, but the very fact of needing the help of a British court and law to keep from getting crushed like an ant also means that they're beholden to it. You can't be dependent on and independent of the same thing at the same time.

Sealand gets shut down as soon as they annoy someone enough that they'll bother.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Kjella]

However, what this fails to consider is that the force of law is rooted in exactly that -- force. Given the UK's possession of military and police forces which Sealand lacks there's n

ot much question about what would happen if the UK decided to push its claim.

Not really, but it'd be a rather poor standard as many countries couldn't defend themselves alone against the neighbours. But even the most pitiful and undefended tiny island nations usually get broad international recognition of their territory, Seeland has none, not even "moral support".

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Sealand's war record is 2-0. The incident you cited, and also some Germans (not the German gov't) tried to take Sealand over, and failed. I believe there was a kidnapping involved in the latter.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[newrisejohn]

It's a little different than that. Delaware's deed claimed all lands within a 12-mile radius from the Courthouse at New Castle, hence the round northern border of the state. The extension of the border to the NJ coast only applies to the area within the 12-mile circle.

From Delaware's website: http://www.dgs.udel.edu/publications/infoseries/info6.aspx

NJ and DE both have interests in the Oil/Gas industry, in the form of tax revenue. Both are home to several refineries. Hence the need for competition.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[pjt33]

The irony is that both governments are run by the same party (Democrats), and yet they still can't get along with one another.

That's not too surprising. Both major parties in the US are marriages of convenience between groups with wildly different views. The same can be said of the major parties in the UK, and probably in any effectively two-party or three-party state. In fact, given the frequency of party splits in countries with proportional representation it may well be true of any political party in the world with more than 100 members.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[viridari]

I used to do a lot of boating/fishing in the Delaware river near where you speak. I find it laughable that Delaware was acting out of environmental concern. The Delaware bank of the Delaware River is the most filthy industrial wasteland for miles around. New Jersey and Pennsylvania also have some industrial development upstream, including oil refineries on the Jersey side, the Delaware stretch of the river is a real armpit.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

...true of any political party in the world with more than 100 members.

...true of any political party in the world with more than 1 member.

Fixed that for ya

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Pikiwedia.net]

That's why Sealand needs nuclear weapons, prefarrably deployed in several nuclear subs spread out around the oceans. Actually, I can hardly think of any nation with a greater need for nuclear weapons than Sealand. No army, not recognized my other states. Mutally assured destruction is their only way to truly uphold their souvereignity.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[nog_lorp]

At the end of the day, a British court ruled that Sealand was outside of British jurisdiction, which atleast means they are not beholden to the British.

Germany also to one degree or another recognized Sealand by sending a diplomat there (rather than communicating with Britain).

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Jane_Dozey]

That's because it's "owned" by some nutbags who think that using loopholes in UK law gives them credibility. If the UK wants sealand they'll take it. If sealand ever got recognition as a sovereign country then I'm sure that the UK could make life impossible for them through legal channels.

Sealand continues to exist because they're not hurting anyone and there's no advantage to kicking them off their little platform. Killing the inhabitants via an armed takeover would be easy but silly.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[malkavian]

Well, by that argument, most of the countries in the Middle East and Africa haven't got a snowflake's chance in hell of fighting off either the US, Russia or China. By that yard stick, they aren't sovereign either.

One of the reasons we aren't mired in huge amounts of empire building these days is because the major powers are largely bound by international law (which is still young and a little 'edgy'). Sealand makes interesting use of those laws in maintaining its independence (and hey, lots of places are now no longer truly independent, just look at the effects of this global credit crisis to see how far and how deep international trade runs).
Should the UK get sufficiently peeved, it will still need sufficient legal backing to annex Sealand (otherwise, it could quite happily decide that it'll expand its borders into, say, France).
There is already a lot of jostling and arguing over National boundaries, and has been for some time; it's just all handled in the courts (well, apart from the jostling in the fishermen's boats). Sealand is just using exactly the same laws.
I suspect the legal wrangling would be that Sealand was never truly a sovereign nation anyhow, making the whole of the later legal premises void. But that in itself would be an interesting courtroom wrangle.

You can of course say "What the hell" and just shut it down. But that would be against the law.. And the UK has big enough issues at the moment without getting hauled through the international courts.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Cowmonaut]

"Since Sealand quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Great Britain, they're not sovereign."

I guess then a whole lot of countries are not "sovereign" because there is no chance in Hell they could fight off the United States, Great Britain, or Russia if either of those countries decided to go all out on them.

Show of force is not the only, nor even the best, way to prove your sovereignty. It just happens to be the "easiest".

Re:Sea Boundaries

[LynnwoodRooster]

Wonderful! Then there isn't a single sovereign nation outside of the US - not a single nation could actually stand up to the force the US can project...

.
And of course Monaco, Lichtenstein, Andorra, Malta, and the Isle of Man are but figments since they're not sovereign, either.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Since Sealand quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Great Britain, they're not sovereign.

Strictly speaking the Vatican has no chance in hell of fighting off Great Britian or, say, the Italian Republic. This does not mean however that the Vatican is not a sovereign country.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK reciently used anti-terrrism laws against Iceland. Do you really think they couldn't do similar to sealand and force them to leave? The only reason sealand exists is that they've not annoyed the UK government sufficiently.

Sealand's a gimmick and I seriously doubt any international court would bother with them.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[zarkill]

As others have mentioned, by that logic you could say NO small country is sovereign, because they would never be able to repel an invasion from a larger neighbor. But what they CAN gain by referencing court decisions by their larger neighbors is legitimacy in the international community. When you are recognized as legitimate by the international community, you don't have to be worried about your larger neighbors invading you, because you would have that international community backing you up. Even the United States couldn't fight the entire world at once.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

At the end of the day, a British court ruled that Sealand was outside of British jurisdiction.

Yes, at that point (1968), Sealand was outside of UK territorial waters (3NM). Since that date, the United Kingdom territorial waters have incread to 12NM, which now encompasses Sealand.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[multipartmixed]

> Wonderful! Then there isn't a single sovereign nation outside of the US - not a single nation could
> actually stand up to the force the US can project...

What about Iraq?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[qoncept]

That may be going a bit far. You're saying any country that couldn't resist an invasion isn't sovereign? Do we need to have a deathmatch to determine which one country is the one that really is sovereign?

They might gain some manoeuvring room by skilful use of legal tactics, ...

They actually did this once, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Sealand Turns out Britain doesn't care. And why should they?

We were planning on taking Sealand over at some point. Inflatable boat, cooler full of beer and lots of yelling. But it turns out they probably actually have some guns. Sigh.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[LynnwoodRooster]

What about it? Seems the previous government of Iraq - that under Saddam Hussein - lasted all of 6 weeks before it was completely obliterated and their military destroyed. And then a new government was set up with US involvement.

.
Unless you count the presence of terrorist activities to indicate a failed projection of sovereignty? In that case, go talk to Spain who's had problems with the Basques for hundreds of years. Or Great Britain with the IRA. Or France with any of the Corsican resistance terror cells... And on and on.

Bottom line: if sovereignty is simply the ability to successfully resist military attacks by another, then NO COUNTRY is sovereign outside the US.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[halcyon1234]

I used to do a lot of boating/fishing in the Delaware river near where you speak... [it] is the most filthy industrial wasteland for miles around.

sooooo... that'd be fishing for fun and not for food, then? Or am I speaking to Mercury McSevenToe?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[pdboddy]

By that standard, parts of the UK are in Sealand's jurisdiction.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[nabsltd]

Seems the previous government of Iraq - that under Saddam Hussein - lasted all of 6 weeks before it was completely obliterated and their military destroyed. And then a new government was set up with US involvement.

Also, the US was trying to do what was necessary to topple the existing government and military in Iraq with minimal damages to the general population and non-military targets.

If the US had basically just wanted a very large hole where Iraq used to be, that would also have been quite easy to do. There is no country other than possible Russia that could stand up to this, as no other country can project so much of their military power to any location in the world like the US. China, for example, would be almost impossible to invade and conquer, but they can't really use their army for anything but defense against the US (unless they can swim better than we have seen).

Re:Sea Boundaries

[pdboddy]

They are sovereign. GB lost the case against them, and reinforced that ruling when they declined to intercede as requested by Germany and Denmark during an incident on Sealand.

And during the 1990s, Sealand fired upon a GB naval ship. I don't see GB having successfully invaded either. Just because a nation can be invaded by another, does not mean that nation isn't sovereign.

Following your statement: As such, the test of sovereignty is quite simple: can you fight off any attempt to deny your sovereignty ? If yes, you're sovereign; if not, you're not., there are two or three nations, tops, in the world. US, Russia and maybe China.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Graham Clark]

As I understand it, Sealand has no land territory and therefore won't be recognised as a country by anyone.

Legally speaking, it's probably a shipwreck - the platform's attached to a barge which was scuttled in place during the Second World War. Shipwrecks can't have their own government or territorial waters.

Their claim to independence is irrelevant.They haven't been closed down simply because they haven't done anything to provoke such drastic action.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[jeffmeden]

...This court ruling, an act of jurisdiction, establishes that we do not have jurisdiction over the territory for which we are passing jurisdiction. In other news, Rule #1 at sealand is: There are no rules! Rule #2 is "See rule #1", and oddly enough Rule #3 is "don't piss off the Germans"...

Re:Sea Boundaries

[paganizer]

Sealand has defended itself, by force, from invasion. It was taken over then liberated by the "prince", this is what prompted the visit from the German ambassador.
It is a sovereign nation, as defined by the UK's own laws; saying it isn't is sort of like Usenet doesn't enjoy common carrier protection.
In other words: a heck of a lot of people are saying it, and unless interested parties do something, what the people are saying will become reality regardless of precedent and law.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[byornski]

"In 1968, the Royal Navy entered what Bates claimed to be his territorial waters in order to service a navigational buoy near the platform. Michael Bates (son of Paddy Roy Bates) tried to scare the workmen off by firing warning shots from the former fort."

Hardly an attempt to take Sealand by force...

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Bert64]

Some of those pirates from Somalia could come and take it over, it would probably be a lot easier to attack than a big oil tanker.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[viridari]

I would never eat anything that I caught there. That said, the channel catfish and striped bass action was amazing. Strictly catch and release.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[bertvv]

That sounds familiar...

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

And the UK has big enough issues at the moment without getting hauled through the international courts.

Except for that they won't get hauled to an international court no matter what. The beauty (from the UK's perspective) of the international court system is that only states can sue other states - individuals can't.

International law, for the most part, AND international courts, are really just a fig leaf. Depending on what's at stake (or perceived to be), any nation will happily ignore international law - and depending what's at stake (or perceived to be), any other nation will happily look the other way, too.

In the end, it's all politics. An independent international law that you could rely on and an independent international court system simply do not exist - and, for the most part, cannot, unless and until there is a world government. (And whether THAT is something to hope for is left as an exercise for the reader.)

Re:Sea Boundaries

[NekSnappa]

There have been similar disputes between Maryland and Virginia over the Potomac River.

Va. wanted to extend intake pipes for drinking water far enough into the Potomac that it reached into Md's waters.

I'm not quite sure who wants drinking water from that river anyway.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask Georgia when Russia invaded how much help they got from the international community!

Re:Sea Boundaries

[KDR_11k]

I suspect the legal wrangling would be that Sealand was never truly a sovereign nation anyhow, making the whole of the later legal premises void.

I strongly suspect that's how Britain treats Sealand, Germany never recognized the GDR and once the borders fell punished citizens of East Germany for things that were legal in the GDR but illegal in Germany.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Joebert]

That's like saying the US Government shouldn't have provided disaster relief to New Orleans because it was man made, or that citizens of some southern Floridian cities aren't subject to taxes because they live on sand that was pumped in to a swamp.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Sique]

Germany never recognized the GDR and once the borders fell punished citizens of East Germany for things that were legal in the GDR but illegal in Germany.

That's not really true. Voting fraud was illegal in the GDR too. Shooting at unarmed people was illegal too.
What other crimes do you have in mind?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[KDR_11k]

That could be solved without shooting even, just blockade the "country" for a few months and see how much food their local farms produce.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, they just need to build factories to produce these weapons and a dock that can build a submarine. Surely they have the room for that, right?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[paganizer]

I'm pretty certain the Vatican could take out the Italian government.
Armed Forces: The Swiss Guard. 1 reinforced company of Swiss Heavy Infantry. One could assume they could expand this force relatively quickly under emergency conditions, and the swiss military man-for-man scores extremely high on QJM. Hitler was polite to the Swiss, and it wasn't just because they laundered money for him.
There are also several Military Orders of the church; Knights of Malta, Sepulcher, Saint George. Purely ceremonial, but there is a framework there.
Lets say that...ok, going to have to reach, but: we continue our current slide into world anarchy; The Major Nations go Bankrupt, meaning the U.S, Russia, Germany, U.K., france, italy.
If things go depression era nuts in Italy, I could see, easily, a socialist strongman taking power.
If a socialist strongman took power in Italy, and NATO was bankrupt, and the EU equally so, I could see an Italian Socialist Strongman using the old "rich, depraved, capitalists have taken over the church" routine.
The Vatican would pretty much have to do something. the Swiss would be relatively unaffected by any turmoil the rest of the world would have; not only do they have assets, but thanks to their every-citizen-has-a-battle-rifle-in-his-closet policy, they are essentially immune from everything but intense air attack. They would almost certainly send a Battalion to the Vatican's aide.
The Church has resources, and would continue to have them after most everything else went to shit. Using the Military Orders as a framework, they could start recruiting good (and not so good) catholics from places they are STRONG, like central & south America. and they could afford to feed them, something The Italian Socialist Strongman would have problems with; The Pope could buy wheat from Kansas, Mussolini, jr. would have problems doing so.
Mussolini, jr. is probably going to have a inflated beyond reality idea of how strong the forces he controls are (it's a tradition); He would probably try to take control of the Vatican. The Swiss Guards Battalion would whip them like little puppies, and then the Knight commander of Malta would order their mainly South American forces to take control of the disorganized territories, to "lend aide and succor to those left without hope from the current crisis".
Viola! the Papal states return!
A closing note: I think I'm in a weird mood today. I'm not sure what makes me think that, but something is telling me....

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Venik]

It seems sometime in the past y few years /. geeks were replaced by /. retards. I don't remember getting the memo...

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Alioth]

The Isle of Man is NOT sovereign (I live there). We may issue our own passports; I travel with an Isle of Man passport - but the island is still a British crown territory even though it is not in or part of the UK.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Graham Clark]

It didn't count as a country then either, so it had no rights that could be "grandfathered in" and no jurisdiction that could clash with that of the British government.

Anyone can declare themselves independent, but to be recognised as such you need to have some territory that's separate from other countries, and that fort has never been recognised as such territory by anyone else.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[CodeBuster]

Sovereignty is tested in battle not in court. The UK could destroy sealand at any time should it become bothersome or refuse to cooperate.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[erikdalen]

What about Vietnam then?

But I agree they probably wouldn't be able to repeat that feat today.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Graham Clark]

No, it isn't. Those places are soggy, but they're land, and states are defined as being particular patches of land.

If there's no land, there's no state.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people have never even heard of sealand. Who are all these people saying it?

Sealand had a guy sitting up there with a shotgun. A real armed conflict would see a sub just fire a couple of torpedoes into the thing and it'd fall over.

In time it'll rust onto the sea anyway. It's more of an amusing curiosity to the international community than anything.

No, saying it's not a sovereign nation isn't the same. I don't think there's a single country out there that consider it so without their tongue firmly in their cheek.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[camperdave]

As such, the test of sovereignty is quite simple: can you fight off any attempt to deny your sovereignty ? If yes, you're sovereign; if not, you're not.

Typical American attitude. Guns, guns, guns. Might makes right. I've got news for you. Most countries cannot fight off an attempt to deny their sovereignty: Chad, Bangladesh, Peru, Belize, New Zealand, Canada, Laos, Poland, Luxembourg, Cuba, Japan, Jamaica, Mexico, Argentina, Liberia, Denmark, Qatar, and many, many more. In fact, only a very small number of countries could pass your test.

Sovereignty comes from diplomacy, international recognition, and compliance of the people being governed, not from strength of arms. Did the Netherlands cease being a sovereign nation when Germany annexed it during WWII? Did Kuwait cease to be a sovereign nation when Iraq annexed them in 1990? Did Iraq itself cease to be a sovereign nation when the US destroyed and replaced their government?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Joebert]

If you look up the definition of land on Google, the majority of the definitions you'll find would support Sealand as being a piece of land before they would support the swamps of New Orleans and sout Florida.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[burris]

If Israel can get away with annexing Jerusalem and the best parts of the West Bank then why on earth do you think the UK couldn't annex an artificial, rusting WWII gun platform that nobody cares about?

Despite all the pretense to "international law" the fact of the matter is that "might makes right." The mighty, which includes the UK, accept and apply international law when suits them and ignore it when it doesn't.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Graham Clark]

Err . . . no.

Roughs Tower's a metal structure sitting on a sandbank, rather than a mass of rock, sand or earth. It's not land by any reasonable definition. Marsh and swamp have always been considered land rather than sea. Much of the land near Roughs Tower is very marshy, but it's never been considered a sea area - no state or law that I'm aware of considers their land extent to exclude marshes.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[cayenne8]

"That's like saying the US Government shouldn't have provided disaster relief to New Orleans because it was man made..."

Err...that's not exactly right. New Orleans is NOT man made. It has existed long before the US was a country, and I kinda doubt they could man make a city out of nothing back then.

Actually, when I got back from Katrina...they had an interesting set of maps in the newspaper. They showed the areas of New Orleans that did not flood (the whole city didn't go under, some areas were bone dry)....and then they showed the original maps of NOLA as settled/explored/used...and amazingly enough..those non-flooded sections coincided with the old maps of NOLA.

Now...in addition to those areas of what I call 'natural' New Orleans...many areas, like New Orleans East, and some of the suburbs were often swamp lands or areas prone to flooding...and those had been pumped out, and 'processed' if you will to make for areas to build. Many of those were wiped out by the levee break related flooding.

But, just wanting to clear up the misconception...NOLA is not man made. Some areas around it are...and some areas of NOLA are naturally here, but, below sea level, but, that isn't man made, nor unusual...they are just prone to flooding and always have been. The man made levee system just protects them...and THAT is what failed.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Your quaint reliance on international law reminds me of a quote from Time Magazine:

"International law is to law what professional wrestling is to wrestling: nobody over the age of nine mistakes it for the real thing."

Re:Sea Boundaries

[nog_lorp]

Funny, but silly. The individual in question was a British citizen, and charges were levelled against him by British authorities. It was in this capacity that the ruling was made.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Strictly speaking the Vatican has no chance in hell of fighting off Great Britian

Well technically they have the Pontifical Swiss Guard that protects them, and it is presumed that God is on their side...

As for the Swiss, we've seen how advance their pocket knives are, and we don't want to know what other advance weaponry that may have !

But seriously, Sovereignty is established by international treaty and are usually enforced by allied nations (or nations designated within the treaty).

Re:Sea Boundaries

[greenguy]

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to buy your novel.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[HTH NE1]

Bisque: How much money do you want?
Brain: 14 billion dollars and 59 cents. And we prefer it in U.S. currency. You see, our only money is the queebe, an asphalt coin weighing over 30 pounds.
Pinky: All Brainania has ripped pockets.
Bisque: Sorry, no loan. There's nothing here to indicate financial trouble. In fact, you have no credit rating at all. Now go away.
Brain: [aside to Pinky] He can no doubt be pressured by a subtle threat.
Brain: In refusing our loan, you could harm delicate negotiations between Brainania and the U.S.
Pinky: Oh, right, right, right. Um, we're going to invade your land, go BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! and make you our pathetic slaves!
Bisque: Invade? Help! Brainania has declared war! Everyone to arms!
Brain: Pinky, you've just created an international incident!
Pinky: Why, thank you Brain. Narf!

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Lord Apathy]

Sealand is no more an independent nation than my asshole is. Seriously, if the British took it out it would be no more than a blip on the road, if that. I doubt any but a few geeks would bitch or care.

The only reason that it hasn't happened already is he hasn't done anything worth the effort. I imagine the official British stance is he is just some nutter setting on a platform calming to be his own nation. Yeah, whatever. Truly, nobody really cares.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Invading Poland?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[HTH NE1]

Maybe it's like trademarks? If you don't rigorously defend your sovereignty, you lose it?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Joebert]

Roughs Tower's a metal structure sitting on a sandbank

Which is likely encrusted with enough solid rock and coral to secure it to the seafloor. Which brings us to my point. The land created by this platform was man-made, just like the land NO and SF sit on now. To suggest that new pieces of land can not be formed is like saying that volcanic islands should not be considred land.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[boriquajake]

*One of the reasons we aren't mired in huge amounts of empire building these days is because the major powers are largely bound by international law* Wow, that is one of the stupidest things ever written. Do you really believe that "international law" is the reason for anything? International law exists to make juvenile douchebags feel better about themselves. Empire building is expensive. It is cheaper to trade than occupy, that is the only reason empire building has gone out of fashion. Dumbass

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Joebert]

NO was blockaided by dikes and had the WATER pumped out. It wasn't always the land you see today. Whether or not there was pieces of dry land before is irrelevant. There's small islands off the coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, using your logic the Gulf was always a large land mass because of these few small pieces of land.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Tubal-Cain]

Wonderful! Then there isn't a single sovereign nation outside of the US - not a single nation could actually stand up to the force the US can project...

• China
• The EU, if you consider that a single country.

Russia might last half a year or so, if only because conquering Iraq in Desert Storm took a full month.

India's population would allow for a large resistance movement, but I am not sure it could support itself

Re:Sea Boundaries

[billcopc]

So.... the UK decided to expand its claim, and that automatically grants them such rights ?

If my neighbor claimed his deed suddenly extends halfway through my living room, I'd tell him to fuck off, and if he tried to make use of that land, I'd make him fuck off.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[WillKemp]

Seriously, if the British took it out it would be no more than a blip on the road, if that. I doubt any but a few geeks would bitch or care.

That depends on what you mean by "took it out". If it's not a sovereign nation, then it's private property within the UK. It may have been squatted in the 60s by Roy Bates - in which case the limitation period has expired and it's now his private property. The UK government couldn't just go "taking out" the private property of UK citizens without some serious repercussions.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[MadMidnightBomber]

What, getting into a monster snowballing fuckup because of boneheaded idealogical reasons and dodgy intelligence?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

My recollection -- the Brits sent a little bit of the navy out to Sealand once, and were repelled, sometime in the 60s or 70s? (They didn't expect a fight, the Sealanders put up a bit of a fight, and the Brits were like "the heck with it" since it's not too strategic).

          They've carefully kept someone on board Sealand since.

          I think it DID go through the courts some and was considered independent.

          BUT -- the data lines from HavenCo have to end up somewhere -- probably the Brits shut that off (due to the geography I assume it's going to Britain.) Or, you know, they just decided it wasn't worth it and shut it down, or the King of Sealand shut it down.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Libertarian001]

What about Vietnam? Once diplomacy has failed and TPTB decide on a military solution, let the military do it's job. Vietnam failed because the politicians handicapped the military, allowing a large anti-war movement to gain traction, ultimately undermining anything the military did.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Lord Apathy]

Very doubtful that any one would really care beyond the academia and geek circles. Most of the world regards sealand as just a bunch of crack pots on a abandoned oil derrick. Never mind it wasn't abandoned and its not a oil derrick. If some point couldn't be made about it, it would be on page 6 of the paper right next to an add for toilet paper.

Look at the incidences in the US in the past 20 years of ruby ridge and david koresh in texas. Yeah, I misspelled it and I don't care. There where some serous legal issues involved how that was handled but since the public at large though they where all loons nobody really cared. Sad, maybe, but that is how it is.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Phil John]

The swiss have one of the highest number of guns per head of capita than any other country in the world, every male up to the age of 30/34 is part of the miltia that comprises their army. They all get issued (and are allowed to keep) an automatic assault rifle in their homes so that they can go into action at a moments notice should the need arise. It's a highly effective, if slightly unorthodox, way of defending your nation.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[dirtyhippie]

That's a facile analogy. If England were to expand its borders in to France, the entire continent would rally to the French side. If they were to annex Sealand tomorrow (or if they have today), no one would blink. To suggest otherwise is idiocy. The instant Sealand has something Britain wants, it will cease to exist. It's a bloody slab of concrete after all, the "native" population of which were British citizens before their "partiarch" went a bit batty.

Don't get me wrong, I wish I could make up my own laws, pronounce myself king, and run my own "country". But I recognize the instant I rocked the boat too much, that would be the end of it. And I have no problem with what Sealand is doing. But to suggest Britain can't put it out of business at any moment they want is madness. The deliver the mails there. They have the cables that connect to Sealand. Get your head out of the clouds.

Love,
Dirty Hippie.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut your fucking stupid face, idiot.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[HTH NE1]

Brain: The average American's knowledge of geography is pitiful. They'll think we're part of the former Soviet Union or Canada.

Mrs. Applebee: Brainania? Oh, yes. I remember. You used to be a suburb of Prague.

Man: General Oden, where is Brainania?
Gen. Oden: It's up here... on the big board.
John Wayne Commando: Ah, where exactly, sir?
Gen. Oden: We're ready to go in a moment's notice...
[phone rings]
Gen. Oden: Yes, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Secretary: For the last time General, where is Brainania?
Gen. Oden:Mr. Secretary: We're way down in the polls. We need a fast, easy war.
Gen. Oden: Sir, Brainania isn't on the map. Our satellites can't find it, and it's not listed in any back issues of National Geographic.
Mr. Secretary: Sadly, we can't go to war with a country we can't find!
[Mr. Secretary hangs up]
Gen. Oden: Wuss.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[cbraescu1]

Wonderful! Then there isn't a single sovereign nation outside of the US - not a single nation could actually stand up to the force the US can project...

Please never underestimate Texas ;-)

Re:Sea Boundaries

[WillKemp]

I know nothing about the US, but i do know about English property law - and i can assure you the courts would care.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Recall that when the UK increased their borders to 12NM, SeaLand responded by stating that they're increasing their claim to 12NM as well. :-)

And there are plenty of places in the world where contries come within 12NM of each other (such as when any two non-landlocked countries that border each other touch the sea).

Re:Sea Boundaries

[ultranova]

If my neighbor claimed his deed suddenly extends halfway through my living room, I'd tell him to fuck off, and if he tried to make use of that land, I'd make him fuck off.

Well, Sealand can't make the British fuck off. It just doesn't have the power. That makes the claim of sovereignty empty posturing.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[cayenne8]

"NO was blockaided by dikes and had the WATER pumped out. It wasn't always the land you see today. "

That is not true. There was a NOLA before any dikes/levees were put up. The city was established way back when....due to its proximity to the outlet of the MS river into the Gulf.

The main part of the city was here long before dikes...it was here before pumps were invented.

The city, however, was 'expanded' later years with pumping....but, New Orleans is not a man made city. It predates the technology you are alluding to.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[lupis42]

Iraq was protected by international law, right?
What about Afghanistan?
What about Kuwait?
Pre-Russia Afghanistan?
Vietnam?
Where are the teeth in international law, where is the force that is used to make the law reality?
Law is an imposition of will through the threat of violence. What violence befalls those who disregard international law?
Then it's more like guidelines anyhow.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[operagost]

If someone blew up all of Rhode Island, I don't think anyone would care either. OH NOES, WE LOST PROVIDENCE!

Re:Sea Boundaries

[ultranova]

I guess then a whole lot of countries are not "sovereign" because there is no chance in Hell they could fight off the United States, Great Britain, or Russia if either of those countries decided to go all out on them.

That's right. It's a bit like the old Warsaw Pact countries: nominally independent, in reality satellite states.

Show of force is not the only, nor even the best, way to prove your sovereignty. It just happens to be the "easiest".

Sovereignty is not about proving anything, it is about being able to maintain your independence when someone challenges it. Sealand can't. They can't fight off Great Britain; they likely couldn't fight off the Vatican. Sealand's a joke, nothing more.

This is not to say that diplomacy doesn't pay a large role, since it can be used to limit the amount of force your enemies can bring to bear against you.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[operagost]

This idea was invented by Shampoo.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[harlows_monkeys]

As such, the test of sovereignty is quite simple: can you fight off any attempt to deny your sovereignty ? If yes, you're sovereign; if not, you're not.

By that test, most of the world's countries are not sovereign.

A more accurate test is this: you are sovereign if and only if (1) you can fight off any attempt to deny your sovereignty, or (2) those who you would not be able to fight off recognize you as sovereign, or are otherwise constrained to not fight you (e.g., Israel could wipe out Syria, but that would damage their relations with the US sufficiently that they will not, so Syria can still pass the sovereignty test).

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

If Israel can get away with annexing Jerusalem and the best parts of the West Bank then why on earth do you think the UK couldn't annex an artificial, rusting WWII gun platform that nobody cares about?

Despite all the pretense to "international law" the fact of the matter is that "might makes right." The mighty, which includes the UK, accept and apply international law when suits them and ignore it when it doesn't.

suck my dick you anti-semitic fuck

Re:Sea Boundaries

[cowscows]

Much of the "original" or "natural" New Orleans is actually above sea level. Even a good portion of the lower 9th ward is above sea level. Closer to the river, there were natural levees well before the Army Corps of Engineers built any, and that gradual slope puts a decent amount of land above sea level.

There are parts of the city that are below sea level, basically reclaimed swamp. but much of the severity of the flooding had to do with the fact that the system of canals, combined with storm surge effectively raises sea level during a big storm, and so things end up worse if there's a breakdown in the system.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[McDutchie]

Look at the incidences in the US in the past 20 years of ruby ridge and david koresh in texas. Yeah, I misspelled it and I don't care.

Um, no, you didn't. :-)

Re:Sea Boundaries

[mpeskett]

The "if you can't defend it then it's not yours" trend is a little worrying. There are plenty of countries that would find it rather hard to hold out were they to be invaded by the armies of a western nation, but they are no less sovereign states.

Simply having the power to take something does not grant you legal right to it (if it did then, for one thing, the copyright debate would be significantly easier to settle)

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm they do have that land mass of asia and europe... and africa to attack. I am pretty sure they can teleport... they have that ability you know?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[mpeskett]

It doesn't matter if no-one cares, as far as I'm aware "it's OK if no-one complains, but otherwise it's illegal" is not what's in the lawbooks.

You may be right, maybe no-one would give a shit and the government could just do whatever they want to Sealand, but this doesn't make it legal or right and so the courts would have to listen when the people contesting the issue raise hell at being invaded.

That court may subsequently decide that they have no legal standing and all the crackpots need to be kicked off their oil derrick, but "no-one would care" is a fucking stupid argument.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[fm6]

You're correct, but you're kind of looking at the wrong issue. If a nation extends its territorial waters to include the sea around another nation's territory, that doesn't mean the other nation automatically gives up sovereignty over that territory. That's the logic that's being applied by "Prince Michael".

But you'll notice that I put all references to the "sovereign ruler" of Sealand in quotes. That's because I find the idea that you can claim to be a sovereign nation just because you're squatting on an abandoned radar platform is just plain dumb. The fact that the UK's lawyers have found it inexpedient to challenge that claim doesn't change this silliness. I think you'll find that the first time "Prince Michael" actually does something that the Brits can't live with, they'll send out a bunch of bobbies on a helicopter, politely but firmly remove the Bates family from their "domain" which they will then blow up.

Of course it will never come to that, because then the Bates family would have to go back to being just another bunch of con artists. So they'll won't ever exercise their "sovereignty" for fear of losing it.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[mpeskett]

and it is presumed that God is on their side...

Read the Bible, having God on your side can be beaten by iron chariots. (Judges 1:19)

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, yes, we forgot Poland

Re:Sea Boundaries

[snuf23]

"but, New Orleans is not a man made city."

Ummmm. So it's just a naturally occurring city? Or was it built by another animal species? Particularly industrious ants perhaps?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[mpeskett]

So in that case, neither Kansai International Airport or Hong Kong International Airport are on land? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaimed_land#Creating_new_land

Re:Sea Boundaries

[FishOuttaWater]

Actually, a conventional sub or two would probably do nicely.

Would the erasure of Sealand really be worth losing even one large cargo ship over? :^)

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of those pirates from Somalia could come and take it over, it would probably be a lot easier to attack than a big oil tanker.

Why bother. No one would pay any ransom.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[legirons]

Hosting on Sealand was always under the juristiction of the United Kingdom. The territorial waters of the UK were increased to 12NM in 1987

You can't take territory from another country using an increase in your water limits.

Imagine the hillarity that could ensure otherwise. Anyone bordering a <12nmi strait could take their neighbour's coastline, and vice-versa.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Graham Clark]

It's more akin to oil rigs than to marsh or reclaimed land - and oil rigs don't seem to count as land in determining territorial limits, which is more the relevant point here. Whether it's land in a colloquial sense isn't terribly relevant.

And actually, there isn't any land created by Roughs Tower, even by your definition, because only the constructed platform ever breaks the surface.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Deadplant]

I'm sure Sealand felt the same way.
But in this case the 'neighbour' has an army, a navy and an arsenal of nuclear weapons...
(reference: Falkland Islands)

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Graham Clark]

As far as defining maritime jurisdiction goes, that may very well be the case. Consult a lawyer. There are rules on what can be counted in such cases.

As an example, though this page, which is apparently a summary of a Sealand citizenship case in West Germany, states that in international law a state must have (among other things) territory consisting of a natural part of the Earth's surface, which on the face of it would rule out any body consisting entirely of reclaimed land or artificial platforms. If this is a far summary of the law, then Sealand simply have no tenable case for statehood.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[ultranova]

Typical American attitude.

I'm Finnish. My "attitude" is based on dictionary definition of sovereignty, as well as the history of my homeland - it's located right next to Russia, and until the dissolution of Soviet Union was pretty much forced to seek Moscow's approval for political decisions, least it be invaded. That means it wasn't fully sovereign.

Guns, guns, guns.

Yes. And bombs, cannons and nukes.

Might makes right.

No, it makes you sovereign. Right has nothing to do with it.

In fact, only a very small number of countries could pass your test.

That is true. And historically, the rest of the world has revolved around them. Take the whole Cold War as an example: Warsaw Pact was Russia's sphere of influence, Nato was US's, and the rest of the world was fought over more or less covertly.

Sovereignty comes from diplomacy, international recognition, and compliance of the people being governed, not from strength of arms.

Diplomacy, international recognition, and the compliance of the people being governed all translate into strength of arms.

Did the Netherlands cease being a sovereign nation when Germany annexed it during WWII?

Yes. Or do you claim that they were independent of Berlin during that period ?

Did Kuwait cease to be a sovereign nation when Iraq annexed them in 1990?

Yes.

Did Iraq itself cease to be a sovereign nation when the US destroyed and replaced their government?

Yes.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[pthisis]

not only do they have assets, but thanks to their every-citizen-has-a-battle-rifle-in-his-closet policy...

There is no such policy. There _used_ to be a policy of allowing those citizens who so desired to keep their rifles and ammo after they got out of military service (it was never "every citizen", and the full-auto capacity on the rifle was disabled).

It's my understanding that while you can still keep the rifle, they've stopped allowing ammunition in the home as of a few years back (after Corinne Rey-Bellet, a ski champion, was shot by her husband with a military rifle and ammo), so the rifles are far from battle-ready. I'd welcome any details or links, since info is scarce.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

"...since the public at large though they where all loons nobody really cared. Sad, maybe, but that is how it is."

That may be the case in the USA but other western nations have a more ...um.. rational judiciary.

There are so many things wrong with the US judiciary it is shocking.
For example, in Canada and most of Europe judges and crown prosecutors are expected to make rational, logical decisions based on evidence and the law. There is no room for a personal opinion on abortion for example. To that end hiring/appointment decisions are made in a roughly meritocratic way.

By contrast in the USA many judges and prosecutors are actually politicians elected by public plebiscite.
Not surprisingly 'public opinion' becomes a seriously considered factor in prosecution/judgment/sentencing decisions.

To ask a prospective judge for his/her opinion on the subject of abortion is tantamount to an admission that they will be incapable of impartially discharging their duty to interpret the law.

Furthermore, in what amounts to spitting in the eye of Lady Justice, newly elected American presidents habitually sack all the federal prosecutors and replace them with partisans from their own party.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[calmofthestorm]

Exactly. It's sovereignty. Sealand is welcome to tell UK to fuck off. With guns.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Maniac-X]

If you recall, the US military defeated Iraq's military within a couple of weeks. The only people fighting anymore are guerrillas, and you could argue that they're not so much "standing up to" the US's forces so much as attempting to annoy them to the point that they leave. In a "fair fight" (if you could call it that) they would never last.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[davester666]

> The territorial waters of the UK were increased to 12NM in 1987.

12 nanometers? I would figure the UK would try to claim more than that for their territorial waters.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[genner]

Well, by that argument, most of the countries in the Middle East and Africa haven't got a snowflake's chance in hell of fighting off either the US, Russia or China. By that yard stick, they aren't sovereign either.

Exactly, why do you think we have soliders in Ira.....I mean middle eastern America?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[genner]

Sealand is no more an independent nation than my asshole is. Seriously, if the British took it out it would be no more than a blip on the road, if that. I doubt any but a few geeks would bitch or care.

I'm pretty sure the Russians where thinking the same thing when they invaided Gerogia.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[raju1kabir]

a British court ruled that Sealand was outside of British jurisdiction, which atleast means they are not beholden to the British.

No.

A British judge decided that he didn't want to hear a case because it felt that his coirt did not have jurisdiction.

That doesn't suddenly turn Sealand into a sovereign entity.

If you get busted for speeding, and the night court judge lets you off because he buys your story that you are the ambassador from Noglorpistan, that doesn't mean that Noglorpistan has magically become a country.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[genner]

Despite all the pretense to "international law" the fact of the matter is that "might makes right." The mighty, which includes the UK, accept and apply international law when suits them and ignore it when it doesn't.

Your forgetting the other law of foriegn policy which is if you have no natural resources we don't care what you do or what you call yourself. Sealand has a lot in common with several third world countries that way.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[genner]

Wonderful! Then there isn't a single sovereign nation outside of the US

Now you your getting it.

Now if you'll excuse me Fox News is on.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[genner]

and it is presumed that God is on their side...

Read the Bible, having God on your side can be beaten by iron chariots. (Judges 1:19)

God's people loose battles but win wars.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Lord Apathy]

Honestly? Who gives a shit what the Russians where thinking? Georgia and sealand have nothing in common. Georgia is a chunk of ground clammed by people and has a somewhat government with international recognition on some fronts.

Sealand is a gun platform from WWII clammed by a bunch of crackpots and clamming it as a nation. Other than the loons and the birds living there they have no population, no formal government, and no standing army or currency that is worth a damn. I admit that I thought is was a novel idea when I read about it but no one takes it seriously. Sealand isn't recognized by any country as a real country. So to say, by international law, it doesn't fucking exist.

Shit, come to think of it I wonder how that platform is holding up. Fifty years at sea an that fucker has to be showing some signs of wear. I wonder how much longer before Britain evicts the squatters and declares it a public nuance.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Dan541]

So piracy is to blame! What ever happened to Sea lands "navy"?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[negRo_slim]

that doesn't mean that Noglorpistan has magically become a country.

Unfortunately I believe you are correct. But for how much longer will we sit idly by while valiant Noglorpistanese freedom fighters wage war for their own sovereign lands! I say the time has come for western nations to longer turn a blind eye on the plight of the Noglorpistanese people.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Dan541]

I can imagine naval destroyers with RIAA printed on the side.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Dan541]

The ability to blow another country to bits does not give you automatic rights to it. I'm sure other Western Governments wouldn't look to kindly at the total annihilation of a defenceless micro nation, by one of their allies.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

"prefarrably" ... "souvereignity"

Either a less than perfect speller or speaking like a pirate ... I can't decide.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[mikael_j]

If things go depression era nuts in Italy, I could see, easily, a socialist strongman taking power.

Interesting point of view but I suspect it would be a fascist (considering their current leadership as well as their history).

/Mikael

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIR the UN hs said that being recognized as a nation only requires that you have land, and flag, a national anthem and a currency. this stops people from founding true nations(in the wake of others). an example would be osetia, they are techniclly a nation but being recongnized is what make them able to continue because of the support that they can be lended, military and trade and diplomacy.

p.s im tired, please ignore all of the typos im sure i've made.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Dan541]

It is private property the government cannot evict them even if it was a part of Britain. Since it's a sovereign nation the British cannot just invade it, that would be an act of war.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Dan541]

How many of their inhabitants have citizenship in other countries do you think? Last I checked you cannot stop a citizen from entering their own country. So I suspect the impact on supply of goods would be close to, if not zero.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[DerekLyons]

Sealand's war record is so good because nobody has seriously tried. Don't fool yourself - if the UK really cared, the SWAT team (or the British equivalent) of any medium sized city could put paid to them without working up a sweat. Not to mention the SAS or SBS.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... We only sent that out to the nerds. So.., yeah, ... Uhm I'm going to have to ask you to just go ahead and move your desk to the basement. If you could do that, it would be great.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Alsee]

Failing memory faculties... you were probably replaced :)

-

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Toll_Free]

Texas can't even defend themselves from being taken over by Mexico today.

--Toll_Free

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Lord Apathy]

but "no-one would care" is a fucking stupid argument.

You may think it's fucking stupid but that doesn't make it any less true. Truth is sometimes hard to swallow but facts are if the British sent commands in today nobody would send troops or challenge the British in any real way. That sounds to me like nobody cars.

Real world example. Tibet. Before China decide that it wasn't any longer Tibet was a sovereign nation. In went the Chinese; out with the Lama. Tibet was a nation no more. Sure there was some protests and some bitch'n and a moaning from the hippy crowd. Lots of free tibet bumperstickers where sold but nobody is sending in the troops. There are no boots on the ground or tanks and planes trying to free tibet.

Reason? Nobody gives a shit about tibet. Hell the US, who should be bitch'n the loudest, has a billion (trillon?) dollar trade surplus with China. And I know that if no one gives a rats ass about tibet, sure as hell nobody is going give a shit and piss about sealand.

Reality sucks sometimes.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Lord Apathy]

In order. Yes they can. Not it sin't. Yes they can. No it wouldn't.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Cramer]

That's the thing... For one country to invade another, there must first be a desire to do so. Then you need the military strength to pull it off. And finally, you need the political position to get away with it. There are two things that keep a nation safe... it's army and the armies of it's friends.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Dan541]

Sealand is recognised by Britain as a sovereign nation.

If it is not a sovereign nation then who does it belong to?

It used to be apart of Britain so I would be very interested to know who else could possibly have a claim to it, other than it's rightful owners.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[jrumney]

Sealand doesn't have land or coastal waters, nor does it have a government that is recognized by any other nation or international organization. It is an oil platform, that in 1968 lay outside the 3 mile territorial waters of UK, but in 2008 lies entirely within the 12 mile territorial waters.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Lord Apathy]

Horse Hockey. Its just recognized that its outside jurisdiction. Not that it is a sovereign nation.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Eravnrekaree]

Sealand would be soveriegn as long as they can remain in control of their territory. It is not that hard to defend a very small country even against the military of a large one. The biggest threat is a WMD, complete annihilation, rather than from soldiers with guns. WMD is also a huge problem with big countries. Larger countries have such much larger territories it requires much more military to handle all of the borders and police for internal matters. As far as their internet connections, if disruptions to these occur outside of their jurisdiction, utilizing the courts of the countries where they are located to address the issues in the foreign countries where the issue exists, would not necessarily mean that sealand does not have jurisdiction and soveriegnty over its own territory.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Eravnrekaree]

P.S. Accepting aid from a foreign country, as long as they request it, would also not violate Sealands soveriegnty. Big states do this often. Sealand using the court systems of other countries, since they choose this, and even choosing to accept military aid, does not necessarily invalidate its sovereignty, as long as it is making these decisions and choosing to accept this assistance and may reject it.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[RobinH]

Sealand continues to exist because they're not hurting anyone and there's no advantage to kicking them off their little platform.

The same could be said of many not-so-powerful nations around the world, now couldn't it? The fact that Sealand may be one of the weakest and least able to defend itself just makes it an interesting boundary case, but it doesn't mean that Sealand isn't a sovereign nation.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[ozphx]

Trend?

If anything the trend is going in reverse. Note: This doesnt yet apply to squatting on an oil rig and hosting up a bunch of child porns and crying out "Soverign Nation (without an army) Play Nice!".

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Dan541]

What is "Horse Hockery" supposed to imply?

If they claim to be independent then they ARE independent, that's really all there is to it.

We have already established that they are not under British jurisdiction, so unless somebody else makes a claim to it they are a sovereign nation.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[ozphx]

Since it's a sovereign nation the British cannot just invade it, that would be an act of war.

Thats a pretty stunning misapplication of logic. Let me fix it for you:

If its a soverign nation, if Her Majesty decides to invade it, then it will be an Act of War [... and nobody will give a shit].

Re:Sea Boundaries

[ozphx]

Well Hussain sure as hell isn't looking very sovereign now. And the yardstick holds!

Booosh!

Re:Sea Boundaries

[ozphx]

You crazy Texans and your obsession with large things. Us Aussies have a single cattle ranch larger than Texas in its entirety. You've lost and can't possibly win, so please shut up and go home!

Take your silly president with you as well.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Lord Apathy]

Yeah, okay, whatever. If you and they want to believe that more power to you. Who really gives a shit?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Vastad]

I don't know. They could win underdog points if they decided to make a very public last stand against Royal Marines, a couple of Westland Lynxes and a Her Majesty's Frigate. No one likes a bully.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

The territorial waters of the UK were increased to 12NM in 1987.

And the territorial waters of Sealand were increased to 12NM at the same time. To say that this change made Sealand part of the UK is no more valid than to say that this change made a section of the UK become part of Sealand.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Kadin2048]

The "if you can't defend it then it's not yours" trend is a little worrying. There are plenty of countries that would find it rather hard to hold out were they to be invaded by the armies of a western nation, but they are no less sovereign states.

They're exactly as sovereign as the people with the capability to deny them of that allow them to be. Or in other words, they exercise their sovereignty at the pleasure of more powerful countries.

You can say this is 'wrong' all you want, but it is how the world really works.

If a tiny country with an insignificant military presence decided to really aggravate a major power, they would quickly see their sovereignty disappear. Imagine Panama deciding to use its control of the Canal as a weapon against the U.S., for instance; they probably wouldn't remain sovereign for very long, unless someone powerful decided to step in and prevent the U.S. from intervening.

Of course, there's more to retaining sovereignty than purely military power; there's "soft power" as well, in the form of trade, diplomacy, and global goodwill and public support, but it's ultimately an issue of power, not of objective moral correctness.

You can't act this way on an individual level, because the government would come to your house and arrest you. There is no such overarching authority when you are talking about nations; they are truly independent actors. They may act in concert against or in support of one another, but the nature of sovereigns is (practically by definition) that there's no limits to their power except for other sovereigns.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Mr. Slippery]

Sealand can't make the British fuck off. It just doesn't have the power. That makes the claim of sovereignty empty posturing.

Perhaps. But if sovereignty relies on being able to repel invasion by powerful foreign nations, then only the handful of nuclear weapons states and their protectorates are actually sovereign nations. (Mexico? Canada? When we want your land, we'll take it.)

Re:Sea Boundaries

[genner]

declares it a public nuance.

Public nusance!
Did the neighbors complain?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Dan541]

Who really gives a shit?

You, apparently.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[MidnightBrewer]

True; the grandfather post seems to be confusing sovereignty with "might makes right". By that logic, America would be the sole sovereign power by dint of having the largest military in the world. This is obviously not the case.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Gordonjcp]

Well, Sealand can't make the British fuck off. It just doesn't have the power. That makes the claim of sovereignty empty posturing.
Furthermore, that's not how we do things. Sealand are quite welcome to pretend they're a sovereign nation and not under the British flag if they like. We'll remind them of that next time there's a severe storm at sea or their generator shed goes on fire. Bet they won't be too keen on their independence then.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't go there. The Swiss are spineless cowards.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[RockDoctor]

Unfortunately I believe you are correct. But for how much longer will we sit idly by while valiant Noglorpistanese freedom fighters wage war for their own sovereign lands!

Not "freedom fighters", but "terrists" ; if they're still fighting for their freedom, then they obviously still haven't won yet ; it is only the cleansing balm of history, written by the victors, that can turn a "terrist" into a "freedom fighter" (who but the successful ex-terrists would want to clean up history like that?).

By making your post you've revealed your pro-terrist inclinations. Go direct to Guantanamo ; do not pass the "Go" square ; do not collect 200 Remuneration Units ; do not expect to get out.

[JudgeDredd]"Grud, these pro-terrist sicko perps! Will they never learn!" [/JudgeDredd]

Famous Freedom fighters of the past : Alfred The Great (formerly Alfred Swamp-Straggler) ; Oliver Cromwell, Regicide ; Benjamin Franklin. Cromwell is more arguable than Franklin.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[RabidMonkey]

I guess it could be argued that, if you can deter an invading country with a shotgun, their heart really isn't in it.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[serialdogma]

Yes, but you seem misunderstand the relationship that Switzerland has with the Vatican state. The Vatican's Swiss Guard is composed of a few hundred Swiss mercenaries. The only real relationship that the Swiss Confederation have with the Swiss Guard is that they hold Swiss citizenship, and enjoy an exception to the no-swiss-citizens-are-allowed-to-be-mercenaries rule.
A war with the Swiss Guard wouldn't be a war with Swiss Confederation.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[klx]

By definition, he doesn't care about that either.

Re:Sea Boundaries

[paganizer]

That was so out of keeping with everything I had read about the way they do things, I started digging.
and came up with nothing. it does SOUND like something that could be the case, but I can't find anything that is less than 2 years old that supports what I said; what you are saying would probably be a relatively recent development.
If you come across anything new or more recent on the subject, would you mind posting it?

Re:Sea Boundaries

[paganizer]

Sorry, it's a graphic novel; are you still interested?

Lack of funding, maybe?

[rodrigoandrade]

We're in the midst of a global economic crisis, you know?? Maintaining an offshore host must be quite expensive, especially if there's no local infrastructure to maintain such service.

Re:Lack of funding, maybe?

[cshotton]

Anyone who followed the photo essay about the fire on Sealand a few years ago would recognize that Sealand is little more than a fantasy/hobby of a couple of nut jobs trying to scam some income out of a rusty hulk. No reliable power source, no easy transport, not potable water, no permanent residents. It is a investor funded camping expedition with the occasional porn video streamed over a slow-ass satellite connection. It is not, nor was it ever, a viable "offshore hosting facility". And after they burned up the generators and half of the platform, it's really not even habitable now. So no surprise that the royalty has likely departed to points closer to the mailboxes holding their dole checks.

Re:Lack of funding, maybe?

[MikeDirnt69]

ThePirateBay should buy them out.

Re:Lack of funding, maybe?

[cshotton]

Pics of the fire. Not a place I'd base my business computer infrastructure...

Re:Lack of funding, maybe?

[Hal_Porter]

Why do all these slashdot hyped hacker projects have to be so half assed.

Re:Lack of funding, maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Brits should have sent a war ship instead of a fire boat and blown the "nation" to bits while the "royals" were not on there. The sooner this thing goes away, the sooner we can deal with real issues instead of these pointless distractions.

Re:Lack of funding, maybe?

[hey!]

Why do all these slashdot hyped hacker projects have to be so half assed.

Obviously, if these projects weren't at least a little bit insane, they'd attract real investment that would hire professional and competent staff.

I think we all have a soft spot for cranks, especially cranks that are almost believable when viewed from a certain angle (and not to closely). They perform an important service to society, even if their ideas nearly always fail.

I think of the culture of ideas as being like an elastic band. One end is anchored in the great mass of the mundane, unimaginative, mediocre minds who perform all the useful but completely unoriginal work. On the other end of elastic are the people who in exchange for appearing occasionally incapable of tying their own shoes, sometimes come close to inventing an ingenious shoe tying machine. Most of their minds are are mediocre too, but they're not unimaginative, they are too imaginative. They aren't unoriginal, they nurse an irrational disdain for proven solutions.

If I had a choice of ends, I'd stand with the crackpots who keep the elastic band of creativity stretched taut across the entire range of possibility, rather than the mass of dead weight on the other end. I'd stand with the crackpots even though the cost is nearly certain failure and humiliation. There are a million Charlie Browns for every Joe DiMaggio. There has to be. If there weren't, then there wouldn't be any Joe DiMaggio either.

Re:Lack of funding, maybe?

[VeNoM0619]

After reading the discussion here, I was about to take sides with Sealand until I noticed your pictures... then thought... that's SeaLAND??!?! Can someone please find me the piece of dirt/earth that it occupies? I thought part of being a nation required land... so now if I were to make a small outpost far in the water it would be my own "country"? Then perhaps I could join the UN, then try and take over the world...

Re:Lack of funding, maybe?

[Hal_Porter]

Dude, that's beautiful.

Re:Lack of funding, maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting to note from the story, is that the security guard was believed to be alone on the 'island' at the time of the fire, and was air-lifted to a hospital. At this time the 'island' was abandoned, and within British waters.

Yarr!

[Anonymous Coward]

It were pirates!

The Website is Down

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should try rebooting their PC three times.

Maybe it was pirates!

[morgan_greywolf]

No, no. Real pirates. With guns. Maybe the pirates took down the 'pirates'! ;) Seriously, didn't we see a story stating that HavenCo. was shutting down?

Re:Maybe it was pirates!

[LaminatorX]

Sealand has held off armed raiders before, even before Havenco set-up shop there.

Re:Maybe it was pirates!

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, the U.S. military has held off armed raders before, too. That doesn't mean they don't lose some battles. :-/

Re:Maybe it was pirates!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to be a pirate!

Re:Maybe it was pirates!

[larry bagina]

The good news: You're a pirate.

The bad news: You're a butt pirate.

Re:Maybe it was pirates!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but haven't you heard? Them Pirates have upgraded their arsenal. If they can take over a brand new tanker, they might have good chances against a platform too.
They seem to be on their best way to take over from islamic extremists as public enemy no 1, at least for a time.

Re:Maybe it was pirates!

[Joebert]

The ugly news: A butt pirate and a larry bagina in the same comment.

Pirates

[cybaz]

They were overrun by Pirates Arrr!

Obligatory..

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotted.

Perhaps this

[sleeponthemic]

Nothing more than the end of an unsuccessful fad.

Well, some really rich person

[Inglix the Mad]

should really consider setting up a real "free speech" server zone should Sealand be offline. I don't like everything on the Internet, but 99.999999% of what I find objectionable shouldn't be illegal either. Still countries, in general, make the silliest things illegal. Child porn is one thing, and that is reprehensible, but simply criticizing the state?

Re:Well, some really rich person

[theaveng]

Fortunately child nudity is still legal. Parents won't get arrested for taking photos of their children skinny dipping.

At least in Amerika. I don't know about Deutschland, Australia, or other zones that seem to be cracking-down on freedom of photographic expression.

Re:Well, some really rich person

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be honest here: Barack Obama is incapable of doing anything wrong. Anyone who criticizes him must therefore have psychological/mental problems and needs to be re-educated by the government! The fact that you don't understand or would question this makes me think you need some re-education before you go full blown crazy and start killing people!

Re:Well, some really rich person

[Timothy Brownawell]

Still countries, in general, make the silliest things illegal. Child porn is one thing, and that is reprehensible, but simply criticizing the state?

Isn't anything that looks vaguely like CP illegal? Even if it's entirely computer generated ("No children were harmed in the making of this film.")? Seems kinda silly to me to "protect children" by banning certain uses of graphics software (especially if the GC videos are substitute goods for things that do involve harm to real children, which seems reasonably likely)...

Re:Well, some really rich person

[Anonymous Coward]

On the cracking-down bit: Germany recently made it illegal to sell or otherwise distribute pornography showing a person who looks younger than 18, even if everybody's of legal age.

Re:Well, some really rich person

[Brian Ribbon]

"Child porn is one thing, and that is reprehensible"

It is disturbing that someone can make such a bold statement about something which they have never seen. How can anyone form a conclusive opinion about child pornography when their only source of information is the mainstream media and government-sponsored advocacy organisations such as the NCMEC?

I and three other people have compiled a list of quotes about the nature of child pornography, here.

Re:Well, some really rich person

[theaveng]

>>>On the cracking-down bit: Germany recently made it illegal to sell or otherwise distribute pornography showing a person who looks younger than 18, even if everybody's of legal age.
>>>

The U.S. Congress passed a similar law. The U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional because there's no crime committed if the naked person is an adult, or if the porn is merely a drawing or computer-generated. No child has been harmed. Perhaps the E.U. Court of First Instance will do the same?

Re:Well, some really rich person

[theaveng]

Also one needs to define what is meant by "child".

A 5 year old is definitely a child and the thought of a 5 year old engaging in sex is disgusting. However can 16-year-old Miley Cyrus who is clearly an adult woman (large chest and capable of reproduction) be called a "child"??? Certainly not. She's a minor by law, but still a young adult. Not a child.

And what about when Jamie Lynn Spears' husband took pictures of her naked 17 year old body? Should he be arrested for producing "child porn"? Given that Jamie Lynn just gave birth to a baby, she's clearly NOT a child in any way, shape, or form. It's UNDERAGE nudity, not child nudity.

Re:Well, some really rich person

[theaveng]

These quotes are interesting: http://newgon.com/wiki/Research:_Child_Pornography#Child_Producers - "Teenagers are becoming major makers of child pornography in Victoria[Australia]." (taking photos of themselves in the mirror, or of their girl/boyfriends)

"...we learn about under-age producers sharing their self-made images with other young people for recreational use, thus making prohibitions unworkable and pronouncements concerning who is "exploiting" who extremely hard to define."

If you take a photo of your 16-year-old self naked, who are the police supposed to arrest?

Re:Well, some really rich person

[westlake]

Well, some really rich person should really consider setting up a real "free speech" server zone should Sealand be offline.

The really, really, rich person tends to get that way and stay that way by minding his own business. He tends to be comfortable with those in power because his origins and interests are the same.

Re:Well, some really rich person

[Brian Ribbon]

"If you take a photo of your 16-year-old self naked, who are the police supposed to arrest?"

In Ohio, a 15 year old was recently arrested for taking nude photographs of herself. They're also debating whether she should be forced to register as a sex offender if convicted.

Re:Well, some really rich person

[shutdown -p now]

The only place I can see this work is Antarctica, and even there large chunks of land are claimed by one country or another (usually not recognized by anyone else, but I doubt that'd stop them from sending a commando squad into "their" territory as soon as someone sufficiently annoying starts squatting there). All land elsewhere is under jurisdiction of one country or another, and sea has its own laws.

In fact, even for Antarctica, is there any land there that is not already claimed by at least one country?

Well,

[Skiron]

...according to that Netcraft screen dump in the link they have changed from Linux (I also presume apache) to MS IIS server... no wonder they appear to have sunk.

Re:Well,

[TailGunner]

Ya, after all it's not like the biggest and most visited sites on the internet (like amazon.com, microsoft.com, etc.) run off of IIS. Oh, wait.

Re:Well,

[G-Wohl]

Well, in that case, call IIS shit; Lighttpd is run by Wikipedia and YouTube, so...

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I missing something? Amazon.com run on Linux.

Tourism

[areusche]

I all seriousness open Sealand up to Tourism! Get a charter boat going two times a week and have a mini hotel on the little nation. Maybe even host fishing charters or something to the extent. There are ways to make money even if you have no other means!

Re:Tourism

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Tourism?

Who do you imagine dreams about visiting an artificial atlantic island on their holidays? That's like a trip to a drilling platform, sans the technical sights.

Hardly an inviting place, except for its historical value as a seafort I can't imagine any reason for anyone to go there..

Re:Tourism

[filthpickle]

look it up on wikipedia and take a peek at the picture of it. Maybe there is a way to make money off that hulk, but it isn't tourism.

Unless it is drug/sex tourism, then you would just ensure that nobody would really care when the UK took it back and sank it.

Deal between HavenCo and Sealand

[jsse]

This presentation outlined a brief history of the deal between HavenCo and Sealand.

HavenCo has to pay Sealand considerable amount to keep the business running there. Therefore, the recently financial crisis would hit HavenCo badly.

So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[caluml]

From http://www.bobleroi.co.uk/ScrapBook/Sealand_Fire/Sealand_Fire.html : "A security guard has been airlifted to hospital after a fire broke out on an old sea fort in the North Sea." and "More than 20 fire fighters have been drafted in to tackle a blaze at Sealand off the coast of Felixstowe." - I wonder which country's hospitals, helicopters, and firemen helped out here.

Aaah. "Thames Coastguard, Harwich RNLI lifeboat, Felixstowe Coastguard rescue teams, firefighting tug Brightwell, the RAF rescue helicopter from Wattisham and 15 Suffolk based firefighters from the National Maritime Incident Response Group (MIRG) were all called into action to tackle the blaze"

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[genner]

That was all foreign aid of course.

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[Ardeaem]

So, rendering humanitarian aid gives you jurisdiction over an area? Your title combined with your quote seems to imply that you believe that, but I know many countries who would dispute that claim.

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[tist]

If you actually look at the article, you'll see it was from June 23, 2006.

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a certain southeastasian country that denied foreign aid partly on those grounds not long ago.

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI he RNLI is not a UK agency, it is a charity.

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[circletimessquare]

"So, rendering humanitarian aid gives you jurisdiction over an area?"

actually, yes it does. you are assuming that under normal circumstances, the aid given would have been provided via some other means, that some other capacity existed to render that aid

so the uk renders assistance to a peruvian freighter in the english channel, or to a french island in the english channel when french aid is otherwise occupied or too far away, then the uk does not get to own that freighter or that island

but you are talking about an entity which was actually constructed by the british, and abandoned. as such, it does get automatic respect of statehood, just because there are some squatters on it who claim it so

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[osu-neko]

I wonder which country's hospitals, helicopters, and firemen helped out here.

Thankfully, doctors, emergency workers and such are too committed to actually doing good to be bothered by idiotic questions about which side of an imaginary line someone is or where they were born. (The real question is, why is anyone else?)

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[berend botje]

Before spouting off nonsense, maybe you should finish that horror movie you claim to be making for years now.

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[Tony Hoyle]

I hope sealand was billed for the rescue costs and medical fees.

Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Channel Islands(Guernsey & Jersey) and the Isle of Man are independant of Britain, yet have British protection.
Andorra is protected by Spain and France.
The Vatican is protected by Italy and Switzerland (kinda).
San Marino is protected by Italy.

If you want an example of international help; when the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk sank in 2000 a British underwater rescue team offered to save them. As it happens they refused the help but had they not refused I think we would still recognise the Russian Federation as being separate to Britain.

It's not exactly a surprise

[hairykrishna]

They talked a good game and had 'coolness factor' going for them but that was about it. I don't think they had all that many clients really. What were their advantages? They didn't offer anything over a normal provider. You couldn't host anything really inflamatory (i.e. normally illegal) there because you'd just get their link cut.

Re:It's not exactly a surprise

[Linker3000]

"You couldn't host anything really inflamatory"

Maybe someone did - and that's the real cause of the fire!!

Re:It's not exactly a surprise

[billstewart]

They never did get more than rudimentary services going from the island, and they had several sets of falling out between the participants, which doomed it. I knew several of the Americans involved, and it was probably a failure before Ryan left, but certainly after; it wasn't a kind of business that the Royal Family really knew how to run.

The point of the place was largely that you could host material that was normally illegal or (more to the point for businesses) would have been taxable if it had been run from the UK. So gambling websites were a major target market, and tax avoidance / evasion in general, and of course music/movie/software piracy. It could have been tolerated, like the pirate radio that Sealand had run in the (?)80s, and they were working on getting a second set network feed from the Netherlands to provide regulatory diversity in addition to physical diversity.

Re:It's not exactly a surprise

[hairykrishna]

A network feed from a second country would have made things more interesting. I always thought that the weakness in their model was that it was easy to shut down the feed without physically taking the platform. The cable/wireless feed has to come from somewhere on the mainland. This was the major difference from pirate radio in my opinion.

I was a HavenCo customer

[SteveFoerster]

I did work for a firm in 2001-2 that used HavenCo. I recall only one significant outage, which, given the advantage, was worth it for my client. Nor did we have problems with bandwidth. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear of the fire, and hope they'll recover, although I suppose it doesn't look good.

Re:I was a HavenCo customer

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear of the fire, and hope they'll recover, although I suppose it doesn't look good.

Considering the fire was 2 year ago. I thought the internet would allow for news to travel faster than this.

Re:I was a HavenCo customer

[SteveFoerster]

It does, but only if you're still paying attention to that particular subject, and by then I wasn't.

Re:I was a HavenCo customer

[raju1kabir]

The fact that you didn't have bandwidth problems is probably closely linked to why you weren't working there past 2002.

The total bandwidth available at HavenCo was considerably less than I get in a DSL connection for EUR 20/month.

I think it was...

[KevetS]

Somalian pirates!

Re:I think it was...

[alabandit]

nah they got better standards

Directory Listing Denied...

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently Havenco.com shows
Directory Listing Denied
This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed. ....

Replace to words and things become interesting

[krischik]

Interesting definition - especially if your replace to words in your sentence: Georgia quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Russia, they're not sovereign.

I know, this is off topic - but I could not resist.

And thinking about it: If your replace UK/Russia with USA then ~95% of all countries become "not sovereign". That's the ~95% which are not mayor nuclear powers.

So by your rationale: sovereign = mayor nuclear power and signing the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" is signing your sovereign away.

Martin

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[halcyon1234]

That's the ~95% which are not mayor nuclear powers.

Wait, they're handing out nukes to municipal governments now? I don't know what it's like in your town, but the vast majorities of the mayors around here are factory-sealed with 98.5% pure batshit-grade insanity. I barely trust my mayor to run a furniture store, let alone an apocalypse.

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[jeffmeden]

If your replace UK/Russia with USA then ~95% of all countries become "not sovereign".

I think the list is currently broken down something like this:

Nuclear capability ~ sovereign
No Oil ~ sovereign
Pissed us off in the past ~ NOT sovereign
Can't prove that there are no terrorists around ~ Really Really Not Sovereign

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[NekSnappa]

Well the beauty of municipal level government is that there is a good chance that the mayor does run a furniture store.

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[KDR_11k]

Interesting definition - especially if your replace to words in your sentence: Georgia quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Russia, they're not sovereign.

Well, that's how the USSR worked, no?

Most countries are indeed sovereign in name only, the superpowers can effectively bully them into anything they want.

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

So.....bascially...by your definition...

Sovereignty=having the capability to start the destruction of the planet?

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[Cobralisk]

Never thought about it like that before. It's a good definition though. If an entity has the power to allow (or not) another entity to exist, that entity is sovereign, and the lesser entity is subject to it. Everything else is just details. Take Iraq for example. The United States decided not to allow that country to exist any more. They won't be allowed to rule their own country independently until the US is happy with the way it is run. So really, even if and when US troops leave that area physically, the sovereignty of that nation is just an illusion because it doesn't make economic or political sense to destroy that country right now.

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[ultranova]

Interesting definition - especially if your replace to words in your sentence: Georgia quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Russia, they're not sovereign.

Well, didn't Russia just demonstrate that it has power over Georgia ?

So by your rationale: sovereign = mayor nuclear power and signing the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" is signing your sovereign away.

It isn't my "rationale", it is the definition of the word "sovereignty". From dictionary.com:

"supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community."

"Complete independence and self-government."

"government free from external control"

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[junglee_iitk]

Keyboard layout, eh :)

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I barely trust my mayor to run a furniture store

Toronto's last mayor did run a furniture store (both before and after he held the office).

Re:Replace to words and things become interesting

[Heather D]

I once suspected that eventually there would be only three types of nations remaining: Those that have a nuclear arsenal, those that are effectively satellite states of the former, and those that exist only in name or history books.

Of course the prospect of robotic troops has had a significant impact upon my thinking.

The intersection of robotics, nuclear weaponry, and public opinion will become the arena upon which the fate of nations is decided.

Those damned somali pirates!

[Anonymous Coward]

Expect to hear ransom demands soon..

International (bad) relations mean not required

[Bearhouse]

No need IMHO - you'll always be able to find someone to host what you want by simply choosing your hosting country.

That's not Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not irony, that's things working as intended. Each State in the US is supposed to be its own sovereign territory. So long as each State doesn't violate any of the Federal laws (which are supposed to be few and far between...) they're supposed to be able to do whatever they want.

There has been a great push however to take away the sovereignty of each State. Take for example, the Militias. They've been nationalized into a "National Guard". What happens if the US government becomes a tyranny and some of the States need to put it down or something? The States have been pretty much defanged.

So, so what if both are Democrats? One side are Citizens of Delaware, and the other are Citizens of New Jersey. They're all American, all Democrats, but they DO have slightly different allegiances.

Slashdotted?

[francisstp]

The ultimate hack.

well duh

[circletimessquare]

hosting on a rusty old gun turret in the middle of the english channel isn't exactly a formula for dependability

just find a micronation hostile to the online laws of other nations, like antigua, and host there

Re:well duh

[evilandi]

The English Channel would be comparatively welcoming compared to the North Sea, which is where they're actually located.

The English Channel runs along the south of England, north of France, and is home to the world's busiest shipping lane. Whereas the North Sea runs between England/Scotland and Scandinavia, and is possibly the most inhospitable non-frozen non-desert area on Earth.

On the plus side, access to drinking water is easy. Open your mouth and tilt your head skywards, you should get a mouthful of fresh rainwater in seconds, pretty much any time of the year.

5 official nuclar powers

[krischik]

I would rather say that by this rationale the the 5 recognized nuclear powers are sovereign and the Rest isn't. Because only those 5 recognized nuclear powers have enough nuclear weapons to blast each other from the surface of the planet.

Of course the rest of the planet would be destroyed as well. But hey, attack successfully repelled.

For who is who read the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty.

 

Re:5 official nuclar powers

[the_womble]

Your number is wrong on one count, and possibly another:

Britain does not have independent nuclear weapons.

States outside those five have large arsenals. India for example.

Sealand vs. More Conventional Islands

[billstewart]

The Havenco folks were well connected with the Cypherpunks group that hung out in Anguilla back during the 90s boom. It was outside the US, so legal to develop cryptography there when it wasn't quite legal here, and it was a tropical island with good beaches and a friendly English-speaking population. Some of the group are still there, and have been running the .ai country-code TLD from the island for some time (for a few years, the ccTLD's DNS server was located in a bedroom in Berkeley :-)

Sealand on Fire

[Tins1618]

Bush probably declared Sealand part of the Axis of Evil, He's gotta have at least one victory before leaving office right?

Simplest answer

[aero6dof]

I heard that it was Somalian pirates... or post-banking-collapse Icelandic Vikings. Have you ever heard of Mad Olav!

Here be pirates

[Joebert]

"Real" priates probably raided them and stole their equipment.

Re:Lack of funding, maybe? Lack of water, never

[evilandi]

no potable water

It's the North Sea, off England and Scotland. Want potable water, instantly, any time of the year? Open your mouth and tilt your head skywards. Problem solved.

The North Sea has severe rainstorms than anywhere else on Earth. It rains and howls a gale almost constantly.

Far more likely, is the problem of too much fresh rainwater causing the roof, of whatever you're trying to shelter under, to collapse. A good drainage system and rainwater butt is more likely to be an engineering necessity than an environmental nice-to-have in any North Sea dwelling. You'll notice from historical pictures of Sealand/Havenco that their single-storey shack has steel girders for roof joists. Nobody hauls steel girders twelve miles offshore purely for decoration, matey.

Re:What about opinions?

[Anonymous Coward]

See what I mean?

Captche: repress

*O*press more like

Bad Boy Furniture:

[Amnenth]

Who'se better than ex-Mayor Lastman? NOOOOOOOOOOBODY! (No, I didn't actually vote for him or anything. I was below voting age at that point.)

state of the art weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I guess you got that right. Today it is not enough to fend of your neighbours any more to keep Sovereignty.

China is one of the 5 nuclear powers.

[krischik]

The 5 official one that is. And since they can quite officially build nuclear weapons chances are that China has enough nukes to flatten the US. The others are Russia, France and UK. And the US of course.

So

Martin

Re:China is one of the 5 nuclear powers.

[nabsltd]

Oh, absolutely true, and it's really not an option for any of these countries to declare all-out war on any of the others.

But, I was assuming that nuclear was off the table, in which case China, France, and the UK really can't deliver any real force more than a small distance. They have some capability, but the US and Russia are the only ones that can really send a large amount of destructive force anywhere, and can stop other countries from sending forces very far.

And, Russia and the US are the only countries with enough conventional weapons to flatten entire countries from a distance.

Re:China is one of the 5 nuclear powers.

[haruchai]

China has the cash to buy whatever the fuck they'd need - and arms dealers have no consciences.

Re:China is one of the 5 nuclear powers.

[nabsltd]

Arms dealers aren't generally selling things like B-1 bombers and cruise missiles...those kinds of things go straight from the manufacturer to the purchaser.

Iraq

[krischik]

Did Iraq itself cease to be a sovereign nation when the US destroyed and replaced their government?

Theoretically No. But practically YES!

Re:Iraq

[mpeskett]

"Sovereign nation" is a theoretical idea. Attempts to argue based on practicality are fundamentally flawed since the only way to be a sovereign nation is "in theory"

Ok, some nations are very well able to defend their sovereignty, but the thing they're defending is itself a concept.

Save some time

[Smivs]

I've just spent a good half hour going through these posts, and nobody knows why HavenCo is absent. Save your time and move onto the next story...

Re:Save some time

[Reziac]

Great, here you are at the very bottom of the page, *after* I've already read all those uninformative posts! ;)

Re:Save some time

[Anonymous Coward]

I've just spent a good half hour going through these posts, and nobody knows why HavenCo is absent. Save your time and move onto the next story...

Ha, exactly what I was about to say, no one knows what happened.

Re:Save some time

[KefabiMe]

Of course, this is the very last post to meet my comment threshhold. -.-

recognised nuclear powers

[krischik]

Interesting read - however it reinstates my initial point: The 5 recognised nuclear powers sell each other components and probably weapon grade "fuel" and therefore are able to have enough nukes to blast the planet apart and the rest of us is not allowed to join the club.

As for India: Well they did not sign (good for them). But that means that any country that did sign is not allowed to sell them any components or weapon grade "fuel" so it will be difficult for them to build a large amount of weapons.

Re:recognised nuclear powers

[the_womble]

The article linked to says that India has enough material to build an arsenal bigger than than anyone other than the US and Russia.

They do have a problem with long range delivery though.

Britain's problem is that it cannot maintain, and very likely use, its nukes without American help, so it cannot blast anyone away. Again, further down the New Statesman article it discusses what would happen if Britain tried to use its weapons with the permission of the US.

Micronations vs Italy

[Shin-LaC]

I don't know where you got the idea that the Swiss are an army of Chuck Norris clones, but the Swiss Guard has been defeated by Italian forces before; notably, when Italy conquered the majority of the Papal states, and then Rome, leaving only what became today's Vatican.

However, there are real reasons why it would be difficult to invade the Vatican. One, the majority of the Italian population is Catholic, and would oppose such a move. This makes it a non-starter under the current democratic government, naturally, but it would be a significant problem even for a dictator. In fact, the treaty that established the Vatican City was signed by Mussolini, who was eager to appease Catholic sentiment.
Two, the Holy See has diplomatic relations with 177 states, and there are over one billion Catholics in the world. International opposition to an invasion would result in strong sanctions against the invading country, at the very least.

None of these reasons apply to Sealand, of course. In fact, there is a much closer precedent involving Italy and an island micro-nation. In the 60s, Italian engineer Giorgio Rosa built a platform in the Adriatic Sea, right outside of Italian territorial waters, and declared it independent under the Esperanto name of "Respubliko de la Insulo de la Rozoj" (Republic of the Island of Roses). Italy reacted quickly: the Coast Guard established a naval blockade of the platform, the Police occupied it, and eventually, the Navy demolished it using explosives. There were hardly any international protests, and the incident was soon forgotten.

Put up or shut up.

[westlake]

It is disturbing that someone can make such a bold statement about something which they have never seen.

Tell us what sort of child pornography has been introduced in a successful felony prosecution in your home town, city or county.

Be clinical about it.

The age and sex of the child - or infant.

The acts performed by the child or upon the child.

The use of bondage props or devices. The use or show of weapons. Unmistakable signs of physical and mental abuse.

Starvation. Rape.

Is it reasonable to believe that the child/these children remain in the sex trade? Is it reasonable to believe they are still alive?

If the conviction was for possession, how many photos or videos were discovered?

If photographs or videos were being produced, were they distributed? It is hard to limit the damage to a child when a video has been posted to the web.

Was the defendant a teacher, a doctor, a priest?

Anyone with frequent, unsupervised, contact with minors? Anyone in a position of authority over minors?

Did he share porn with minors?

Were there unmistakable signs of arrogance, recklessness or self-destruction in his conduct?

A teacher who routed tens of thousands of downloads through his school accounts? Now unemployable. The teacher who lost his pension? The custody of his kids?

Provide a link to a local registry of sex offenders.

How many of those convicted for possession or distribution of child pornography also show convictions for sexual assaults and misdemeanors? Other violent crimes?

How many are repeat offenders?

Re:Put up or shut up.

[Brian Ribbon]

"Tell us what sort of child pornography has been introduced in a successful felony prosecution in your home town, city or county."

The media, which is often the only source of information in individual cases, does not produce objective reports on child pornography cases. It reports that pictures showed children "as young as [the youngest age]" and that a person possessed "pictures showing [the most offensive type of image which he possesses]".

Some of your questions are extreme to the point of irrelevancy. There is no evidence of children ever being killed in order to produce pornography.

I cannot "provide a link to a local registry of sex offenders", as I am not American.

If you wish to research the nature of child pornography, try analysing academic journals rather than the mainstream/local media. The majority of academic research suggests that violence is rarely a feature of child pornography.

"How many of those convicted for possession or distribution of child pornography also show convictions for sexual assaults and misdemeanors? Other violent crimes?"

The only study which found a significant correlation between the use of child pornography and the commission of contact offences was withdrawn from publication or peer review, due to concerns over its applicability to the general population of child pornography offenders.

In short, claims that child pornography is mostly abusive and dangerous are not supported by the majority of academic sources investigating the nature of the material. The media's claims are motivated by potential newspaper sales (or adverts, in the case of broadcast media), the NCMEC and other organisations are motivated by a desire for repeat funding, while governments know that they can restrict the freedoms of the population (especially on the internet) by playing the child porn card.

I encourage you to read the list of quotes which I posted above, as they answer many of your questions.

Attack

[Qoroite]

I suspect an attack by sea-monsters.

Not gone; under new management

[pig_man1899]

In a related story, SomaliPirates.com is pleased to be operating our first independent data center. Check out our bulletin board of items for sale.

Bring and Buy Sale

[Dogtanian]

That's why Sealand needs nuclear weapons, prefarrably deployed in several nuclear subs spread out around the oceans.

Yeah, I heard that they're having a "Blue Peter" style appeal for people to send them their old smoke detectors so they can collect enough of the radioactive parts to build a bomb...

Last I heard they weren't even hosting locally

[ehintz]

From my understanding, Ryan Lackey got forced out some years back, and it's been pretty shaky since then. I recall somebody doing a trace and finding that sites supposedly hosted there were actually resident in some London based datacenter. Also, IIRC shortly after 9/11 they made some noise about being happy to share "terrorist" data, sans warrant, to US/UK law enforcement. General feeling I had as a result is that it was nothing more than slick marketing in recent times(I do think when Lackey was on board he was serious about the concept).

Re:Sea Boundaries If the US attacks another

[davidsyes]

country in a "preemptive" or "expeditionary" type of manner, it should be the SCOURGE of the planet. If the US announces intent to do so and the rest of the world does not join in opposition, and it leads to the rest of the world eventually not holding/supporting the US markets, and the US implodes, that will be Karma. Well, that is what part of me thinks.

OTOH, when looking at how Carter and the other two envoys/delegates/quasi-inspectors were snubbed by Harare, and given the plight of South African nations, then, in light of what the US did to/for Iraq, i am kinda waiting to see whether the rest of the world will, without US leading or cajoling, take the initiative and just TELL Mugabe his power has run its course and the livelihoods of millions outweigh his personal interests. I am not willing (yet) to equate Mugabe to Saddam Hussein, but when you are starving, you have inflation in the millions, have no interest in nor are showing any interest in revitalizing the nation, then you should NOT be in power, NOT in control of that many people's destinies, and CERTAINLY not allowed to eat and dress well and enjoy a personal entourage of bodyguards while the other 98% of the population are treated like SHIT.

Karma knows her time, but she is being a total FUCKING BITCH unless it is the case that ALL these suffering people ARE living their descended-into-hells cycles there in Africa. Some might make that argument, but then it still applies to others on other continents, too. But, in reality, it's greedy powerful nations battling with greedy wannabe-powerful nations' tyrants/whatnots, and the will (or lack thereof) of many millions who stand around like it's all a big spectacle.

Maybe Karma is sitting by the sidelines twiddling her fingers waiting/biding her time for the REST of us to enter her fold.

"havenco" has been hosted in London since 2003

[rdl]

HavenCo moved all customer servers to London sometime after I left, in 2003. Supporting evidence for this, besides traceroutes, is that the big fire, which destroyed generators and other equipment on sealand, did not affect the servers at all. Either you believe they had enough UPS capacity to ride out a multi-month power outage, or ...

(the 1ms pingtimes from routers in London is also a good sign...)

It's a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI the Sealand fire was two years ago. I live about 5 miles from Sealand, just along the coast from Harwich.

The whole idea of HavenCo was a fantastic one, but only if it had been properly thought through and planned. Even though it went off to a great start, agreements were broken and all sorts of hell broke loose. It's a shame, I'd love to see HavenCo still going strong.

I have contacts on Sealand so might be a worthwhile contacting them to see what's going on.

Iraq and Sovereignty

[Yeff]

Iraq lost its sovereignty back in 1991 with the establishment of the northern no-fly zone (Operation Provide Comfort). The United States returned Iraq's sovereignty back in 2004. If Iraq claims soveriegnty (it does) and the US recognizes it and is willing to help Iraq enforce it (it does and is) then Iraq IS sovereign. Unless some power manages to invade Iraq while preventing the US from acting in its defense, Iraq is a sovereign nation.

Re:Sea Boundaries - Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the irony lies within your writing, where you assume that a puppet government has a hive mind that always agrees with itself. Since when has belonging to a (bi-)party meant that you always have to vote exactly the same way? And by extension, that you have to oppose the other party, even when they are right?

Haven was dead when origional CEO left in 2001

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pretty sure that HavenCo has been offline since 2004, but it actually started falling apart shortly after the original idea guy, and founding CEO, Sean Hastings, stopped being involved very early on.

I think their was some bitterness in his departure from the project.

He wrote a pretty decent book about Religion, Politics, and technology a few years ago called "God Wants You Dead" but does not mention HavenCo at all in the book, despite similar topics such as Seasteading being covered.