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?"

12 of 287 comments (clear)

  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: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!!!
  5. 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.

  6. 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"

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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

  12. 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...