Slashdot Mirror


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?"

62 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. Sea Boundaries by telchine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Sea Boundaries by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Sea Boundaries by Linker3000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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."

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    3. Re:Sea Boundaries by secmartin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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...

    4. Re:Sea Boundaries by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Sea Boundaries by theaveng · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    6. Re:Sea Boundaries by Nursie · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    7. Re:Sea Boundaries by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Sea Boundaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:Sea Boundaries by newrisejohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Sea Boundaries by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Sea Boundaries by viridari · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    12. Re:Sea Boundaries by Pikiwedia.net · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    13. Re:Sea Boundaries by nog_lorp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

    14. Re:Sea Boundaries by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Silly rabbit
    15. Re:Sea Boundaries by malkavian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Sea Boundaries by Cowmonaut · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "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".

    17. Re:Sea Boundaries by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Funny
      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.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    18. Re:Sea Boundaries by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    19. Re:Sea Boundaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    20. Re:Sea Boundaries by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Funny

      > 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?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    21. Re:Sea Boundaries by halcyon1234 · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

    22. Re:Sea Boundaries by pdboddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Julie Moult is an idiot.
    23. Re:Sea Boundaries by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

    24. Re:Sea Boundaries by Graham+Clark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    25. Re:Sea Boundaries by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...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"...

    26. Re:Sea Boundaries by paganizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    27. Re:Sea Boundaries by Joebert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    28. Re:Sea Boundaries by paganizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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....

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    29. Re:Sea Boundaries by Venik · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    30. Re:Sea Boundaries by Alioth · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    31. Re:Sea Boundaries by erikdalen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about Vietnam then?

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

      --
      Erik Dalén
    32. Re:Sea Boundaries by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:Sea Boundaries by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    34. Re:Sea Boundaries by dirtyhippie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    35. Re:Sea Boundaries by mpeskett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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)

    36. Re:Sea Boundaries by Graham+Clark · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    37. Re:Sea Boundaries by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    38. Re:Sea Boundaries by negRo_slim · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  2. Lack of funding, maybe? by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Lack of funding, maybe? by cshotton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --

      Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
    2. Re:Lack of funding, maybe? by cshotton · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --

      Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
    3. Re:Lack of funding, maybe? by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. Obligatory.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashdotted.

  4. Well, some really rich person by Inglix+the+Mad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why? Is there any shortage of bad ones?
  5. Well, by Skiron · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...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.

  6. Deal between HavenCo and Sealand by jsse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK... by caluml · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"

    1. Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK... by Ardeaem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  8. It's not exactly a surprise by hairykrishna · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    1. Re:It's not exactly a surprise by Linker3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "You couldn't host anything really inflamatory"

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

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
  9. I was a HavenCo customer by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  10. Replace to words and things become interesting by krischik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Replace to words and things become interesting by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Replace to words and things become interesting by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Funny

      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

    3. Re:Replace to words and things become interesting by NekSnappa · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
  11. Sealand vs. More Conventional Islands by billstewart · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  12. Re:5 official nuclar powers by the_womble · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  13. Save some time by Smivs · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  14. Micronations vs Italy by Shin-LaC · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  15. "havenco" has been hosted in London since 2003 by rdl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...)