Slashdot Mirror
The Fall of Data Haven Sealand
Fluffeh writes "Ars has a great article about the history of Sealand, a data haven — a place where you can host almost anything, as long as it follows the very bare laws of Sealand Government. Quoting: 'HavenCo's failure — and make no mistake about it, HavenCo did fail — shows how hard it is to get out from under government's thumb. HavenCo built it, but no one came. For a host of reasons, ranging from its physical vulnerability to the fact that The Man doesn't care where you store your data if he can get his hands on you, Sealand was never able to offer the kind of immunity from law that digital rebels sought. And, paradoxically, by seeking to avoid government, HavenCo made itself exquisitely vulnerable (PDF) to one government in particular: Sealand's.'"
The idea that you could escape from your own government's laws by keeping your data somewhere else is preposterous on its face. At some point, you have to get that data, and that data will have to cross into your own location, which would make you in possession of the data and liable for possessing it. Unlike Swiss bank accounts which hold money secretly for you, and are relatively safe from the prying eyes of the government, data is something that is not as easily picked up in person.
Tor onions. Are they good or are they whack?
The freedom-minded Hastings had moved to Anguilla to work on online gambling projects
What they really want is an abolition of all regulation so they can exploit your weaknesses and suck you dry.
I wonder whether Parker and Stone are finally realising this with their latest South Park episode on Cash for Gold services?
Sealand has no practical sovereignty. The most they can say is that so far the UK hasn't chosen to take over, and they're not aware of any plans to do so. Nobody believes the UK couldn't take Sealand if they want to. Nobody believes that it would be a diplomatic problem for the UK in their relations with other countries if they did. So Sealand, at best, can operate only if the UK lets it. That's not sovereign in any meaningful sense. Even if you feel that it would be wrong for the UK to interfere, that's hardly something you're going to rely on to stop them doing so.
Anytime you *think* you have the intellect to 'get the better of me'? Come on over here -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39493361 & disprove any points I have made on hosts files there, you trolling worm!
(Along with the thoughts & opinions of your /. peers that outnumber your craven tactics 40++:1 and actually agree that hosts files are useful for speed, security, and more of beneficial value to they and others)
You're 'so brave' doing cowardly little trollish ad hominem attack attempts, in your snide little comment there -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39406223 !
Let's see how well you bear up under fire when you're challenged to disprove not only the thoughts of others on hosts files benefits they have gotten using custom hosts files, but also points I have made in favor of hosts files that have gotten myself modded up MANY TIMES here by others also (which is tough to get as an AC since /. buries our posts by default).
* It is going to be a PLEASURE annihilating you...
APK
P.S.=> So yes - that's right: I am going to make it a point to humiliate you now, worm.
Especially since you saw fit to attempt to try to 'start up' with me there with an off-topic illogical failing attempt @ ad hominem attacks directed my way there!
So - now the shoe's on the other foot, except that it will illustrate your inadequacy in things technical in computing hugely, proving this is no mere ad hominem attack on my part (only payback you merited, and best part is? YOU only did this, to yourself, worm)... apk
I wonder why no REAL country in this world wouldn't receive Wikileaks voluntarily. I mean... there has to be a real government out there who just loves trashing the other BIG countries with wikileaks. In the end it's information and information can be used to manipulate people.. somebody MUST love the idea, even if that somebody is a country low on human rights like North Korea or Burma. I'm not saying it's a good thing to have this data being used for manipulations.. I'm just wondering why is there that nobody actually uses it and welcomes it for that matter.
Sealands failed because hosting anything there was crazy expensive and their only known data link was WIFI from the UK mainland.
Also anytime the UK government felt like shutting them down they could. The UN won't defend a country it doesn't recognize.
Isn't the big problem that Sealand's cables would still have to come ashore somewhere? Even if they used satellite the ground stations would still be in somebody's jurisdiction.
The only way I can see their concept working is on their local LAN. Once they hook up to the internet, they can simply be regulated through their upstream carriers.
and there is that pesky little problem of the other countries being able to threaten corporations and banks so that you would have no commerce.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This story shows up every couple of months...
And when they find out how badly they're being treated compared to the "consuming world" boy are they gonna be pissed.
So one of two things will have to happen: Either their standards of living are raised to the point of the industrialized countries, or our standards are brought down to theirs.
I guess we know which one the corporate elite would prefer, based on what they've done to the economies of the industrialized nations.
You are welcome on my lawn.
How can it be, when there are no horses?
UK - Horses.
US - Horses
Spain - Horses.
Sweden - Horses
France - Horses
Sealand - No horses!
Sealand - seahorses.
It has to be smashed, and the only force with the power to smash it is the international proletariat.
Heh, it NEVER works that way! The proletariat is always handed over from one beaten-down lord to the next new lord in line. Communist intelligentsia was one of the harshest masters ever. And the ones who thought the problem was in "intelligentsia" part were THE worst (Khmer Rouge).
Face it: we are never going to be free by the system. Only possible freedoms for those who notice when it's gone are the temporary freedoms of outlaw and of wildlife between hunting seasons.
Look back in history and realize that it was ALWAYS the "bourgeoisie" that led revolutions. The myth of the worker standing up and rebelling is just that, a myth. Every at least halfway successful rebellion was led by some "educated" people on top of the chain. Sure, having "pleb soldiers" sure helps, but the heads of revolutions always came from a fairly educated background, never from "the mass" of people.
The main reason why revolutions have been fairly rare lately is that these people have been admitted to the ruling class. So why bother revolting?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sealand (and HavenCo)... just like BitCoins. Interesting in an academic sense, but not at all practical or viable in the real world, for reasons which should have been obvious to everyone involved before things even got started.
Either their standards of living are raised to the point of the industrialized countries, or our standards are brought down to theirs. (...) I guess we know which one the corporate elite would prefer, based on what they've done to the economies of the industrialized nations.
That's a vast oversimplification, our standard of living is based on being able to hire people to work many hours for one of our hours. If you had to pay US wages to all the people that produce your goods then prices would be higher and your effective wealth lower. Redistributing wealth is easy - it happens every time you buy something from India or China. Creating more wealth is hard, businesses aren't inefficient on purpose. In the end you need to have some sustainable advantage to sustainably have higher wages than other countries and there aren't really that many on a national level, there's a few countries like Saudi-Arabia that have that much oil but for most countries it's just people. Give the rest of the world a good education and there's nothing special about an American teenager over an Indian or Chinese teenager. We've tried to sustain it anyway on debt and the results are trickling in.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The proper English spelling of naÃveté is libertarianism, as in, "all we need to do is create our own island and we would be free".
No you wouldn't, and if you had spent five seconds thinking about it you would see the obvious flaws on your naÃve solution. Or you can call it "libertarian" and automatically feel validated without having to think about it.
The reason Sealand was created was an understanding that most often, government and law enforcement will attempt to shut down the SOURCE of data they have a problem with. Just like the "War on Drugs", they're most interested in catching the major dealers, as opposed to small time individual drug users (though certainly, many of them get caught in the wide nets they're constantly putting out, too).
With computer data, it's kind of an "every man for himself" situation out there. If you want to view illegal content? You can do so, but you better be well versed in how to scrub it off of your machine when you're done viewing it, or know how to encrypt it so it can't be found and accessed by anyone but yourself. The SOURCES of the data are the ones at greater risk.
Of course, realistically, Sealand never really worked, because ultimately, they didn't think on nearly large enough of a scale. If you're going to declare a territory is ruled by your OWN laws and not a part of any other nation, you're going to have to fight for it. That means, you better have enough of a population living there so you can maintain a standing army of some sort, and you have to pose some sort of risk to those who might decide to forcibly take you over. (By that, I mean a number of things, including simply the fact that in order to do so, a government would have to injure, kill or take prisoner a significant number of people -- which would raise "red flags" with enough other people about human rights issues.) You should also really possess some natural resources and be able to maintain a level of self-sufficiency. (Even a small island would seem to be much more valuable an asset than a man-made vessel out in the ocean. At least an island is made of actual land/soil, meaning crops can be grown on it.)
Libertarian, n:
A person who understands the difference between government oppression and free market oppression and prefers free market oppression.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
That's a vast oversimplification, our standard of living is based on being able to hire people to work many hours for one of our hours. If you had to pay US wages to all the people that produce your goods then prices would be higher and your effective wealth lower.
This is so wrong it is almost humorous... except for the fact that many people believe it and don't understand where the wealth of 1st world countries come from.
No, the wealth of people in major industrialized countries comes from the ability to work more effectively and be able to perform tasks with less effort and to collectively be able to do things in less time or to produce more with the same amount of labor. This is usually done not through hiring slaves or paying people in 3rd world countries, but rather through designing machines or better manufacturing processes that people who live in countries with less wealth.
If you take how many farmers it takes to grow a bushel of wheat or corn in America vs. Ethiopia or Madagasgar, there is a huge difference. One farmer in America can feed nearly a thousand people out of his (or her) own labor. In Ethiopia, perhaps a dozen people. In practice this difference is even more exaggerated but the basic principle still hold true. This also applies to how cloth is manufactured, how lumber is harvested and machined down to be able to construct housing, and just about everything which can be imagined that is made by the hand of men.
Face it, if 3rd world countries simply stopped selling stuff to 1st world countries, those 1st world countries wouldn't starve or even go without luxuries. Many like the United States even historically didn't even depend much upon foreign trade and domestically has been able to produce just about everything it needed and then some. If these "wealthy countries" simply pulled in on themselves with an isolationist movement, they would still be wealthy and be able to tell these poorer countries to "get lost" or even "nuke themselves into oblivion" for all that matters.
Yes, in the short term there might be some inflation if suddenly goods and services from poorer countries stopped flowing into the wealthy countries. But they would recover and in fact the incentive to increase efficiencies in the factories that would at that point by necessity have to be domestic producers would likely improve to the point that overall wealth would even increase relative to the amount of labor that an ordinary worker would have to perform in order to maintain a given standard of goods, services, and supplies available to that individual citizen in that country. Over the long term, the wealthy would become even wealthier.
As for the poor countries, as soon as they told off the wealthy countries they would also be cut off from the wealth of those countries and be forced to make their own luxuries... which they may or may not be able to do. If anything, there would be short-term deflation and then they would spiral downward in a vicious cycle of economic collapse that would be hard to recover from.
You claim that creating more wealth is hard. Absolutely it is! It takes primarily the ability for letting people make their own decisions acted out on a massive scale so that eventually the best ideas can come forward. Bad ideas will be presented too, but those will eventually disappear in the marketplace of ideas... or simply in an open market in general that allows anybody to participate. If you are in a government or society that doesn't allow these ideas to come forth, that society will literally be poorer because of it. Individual personal liberty is the key to wealth creation. Some people simply enjoy living in poverty and I don't mind if they want to follow that as a sort of religion or philosophical principle. I just don't want to be forced at gunpoint to be one of them.
Having read the whole paper, the history part is great, and the legal part is speculative. The key point that comes out is that Sealand was just too small to be taken seriously as a country. The population ranged from 1 to 4. That was the big problem.
If you wanted to start a data haven, Nauru is probably the place. Nauru, population about 9000, is a moderately successful financial haven. Nauru is recognized as a country by all the relevant organizations. It's been a popular location for "High Yield Investment Programs".
The country was once supported by phosphate mines, and had a very high income per capita until the phosphate ran out in the 1980s. 90% of the land area is now a useless wasteland. 90% of the people are unemployed. GDP of the whole country is $60 million and dropping. Only aid from Australia keeps the place going. If someone was looking for a microstate to buy, Nauru would be the choice.
That's the low end of microstates.
Is this the same Wikipedia that says Windows wasn't designed for the Internet? link
AccountKiller
Misunderstanding what a "worker" is. (Stalin did this)
Thinking that an outcome is the product of its leaders rather than united support. (the bourgeoisie do this)
Confusing "educated" with "bourgeoisie". (the Khmer Rouge did this)
But it has been argued that 1917 was not a worker's revolution in the Marxist sense as the country hadn't even left feudalism. I don't think that's what you're saying, though.
Does that seem contentious or inaccurate to you?
Windows 3.1 (1992) certainly didn't have the net in mind.
This is usually done not through hiring slaves.
Really? Then why are American corporations measuring their success in terms of "profit per employee" lately? Last time anybody did that was prior to the Civil War...
Back when Henry Ford revolutionized industry, he realized right away that it was no one else's responsibility to hire potential customers. So the real question is: with so many people making stuff they can't possibly afford to buy, who the fuck is supposed to buy it?
That's the real reason behind the current economic collapse -- a culture of companies that are all trying to squeeze out a little extra profit by hiring people that can't quite afford the product they're producing. The result is more wealth, sure, but when everyone starts doing it, everyone has fewer customers. More wealth X fewer customers = reduced profits. So they try to squeeze harder, and they start using slave-labor metrics to guide their decisions, and the economy continues to become more and more suceptible to disruption as fewer and fewer people actually have the power to make choices in it. Seriously, what's the difference between Soviet bureaucrats and today's wealthy capitalists? Either way you've got 1% of the population planning the economy.
Aren't the 1st world countries dependent on energy though? I mean, without oil nor gasI think there will be some serious issues pretty quickly. And please, no solar or wind power in your response. Nuclear either since 90% of the 1st world countries don't product any uranium.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
You're talking about Microsoft Windows right? The same OS where TCP/IP was at one point a 3rd party addon? How could it possibly have been designed for the internet without having TCP/IP?
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39497061 especially by ac replies days later no less only to fail badly on every 'point' he tried to make. He started it with apk here http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39406223 and it's painfully obvious that after apk has challenged him on hosts files technical merits for gaining speed, added security, and even added 'anonymity' that it was TheRaven64 trying to 'defend himself' only to fail badly in front of everyone on this website.
No, the wealth of people in major industrialized countries comes from the ability to work more effectively and be able to perform tasks with less effort and to collectively be able to do things in less time or to produce more with the same amount of labor. This is usually done not through hiring slaves or paying people in 3rd world countries, but rather through designing machines or better manufacturing processes that people who live in countries with less wealth.
And who exactly takes it from there? You design it, cheap foreigners produce it, operate it and support it is the norm today. Sure it's nice to be skimming off the top keeping only the high cost, high skill labor in the US but it won't last forever, in fact it's running out of time. Production, transportation, material moving, natural resources, construction and maintenance occupations in total make up about 20% of the jobs, the production workers alone some 6%. I don't think there's a single thing in my PC, TV, stereo or of my small electronics that is made in the western world, nor is 95%+ of the clothes I find in a regular store. If it wasn't for a bailout you'd not have an auto industry either.
The other 80% working in management, professional, service, sale and office occupations don't really hold much advantage. A guy sitting in India can be just as efficient a hair dresser or waiter or chef or retail clerk or IT administrator or software developer as you. Usually not if you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for the lowest bidder, but then that's like hiring the CEO's nephew because he's "good with computers" and would do it for $50. Those design jobs aren't immune to outsourcing either, they build experience and they're not stupid. Be "close enough" and make it cheaper and the cheap clone will win, if you don't believe that you're IBM in the 1980s and in for a rude awakening.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This is usually done not through hiring slaves.
Really? Then why are American corporations measuring their success in terms of "profit per employee" lately? Last time anybody did that was prior to the Civil War...
I'd say that this is a sign of failure in creating wealth. The south prior to the Civil War wasn't exactly a powerhouse of wealth and self-sufficiency. If American corporations are trying to move in that direction, it's not clear what their long term strategy is.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Because they have decided to break the social contract, in which they are able to create profits because they exist in an orderly society.
Now, it's just immediate profits no matter the human cost.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Because god knows all technical innovation stopped in the late 1970s, and fossil fuels are all we're ever going to have because it's in the bible.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Face it, if 3rd world countries simply stopped selling stuff to 1st world countries, those 1st world countries wouldn't starve or even go without luxuries.
Yeah? I guess those precious first world countries would crash and burn really hard if those folks here stopped selling anything to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
Face it, if 3rd world countries simply stopped selling stuff to 1st world countries, those 1st world countries wouldn't starve or even go without luxuries.
Yeah? I guess those precious first world countries would crash and burn really hard if those folks here stopped selling anything to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
Other than the fact that the United States and Canada have more oil in the ground (don't read that as "proven oil reserves"... a different beast entirely) than all of the OPEC countries put together. The only reason oil is even being imported to North America is because of political reasons, not technical nor access to the raw resources.
There may even be good reasons to import the oil from Saudi Arabia rather than from ANWR, oil sands in Utah, or elsewhere, but America would do quite well without OPEC if push came to shove, and might even have enough to supply Japan and Europe at current production levels.
That doesn't even touch "alternative energy resources" that would certainly become profitable to work on. In effect, you've proven my point here again.
Aren't the 1st world countries dependent on energy though? I mean, without oil nor gasI think there will be some serious issues pretty quickly. And please, no solar or wind power in your response. Nuclear either since 90% of the 1st world countries don't product any uranium.
If you throw out solar, wind, hydro, thermal, and nuclear energy, then you might have a point. I guess you need to throw out other sorts of innovation as well and go back to manual labor.... and a stone age level of technology of mainly hunter-gatherers and mass genocide of 99.9% of humanity while you are at it. That isn't my vision of the future though.
Seriously, this is a stupid argument and I don't accept your rejection of new innovations in terms of how energy is obtained and utilized. It might not be anything we are currently using at the moment, but if you give people personal freedom to innovate there will be opportunities that don't necessarily need to come from 3rd world countries.
More to the point, we don't need to have a petroleum based economy, and it is entirely possible to come up with other sources of energy for operating the machines we use every day and not just maintain but grow access to that energy. You, Pieroxy, aren't open to any new energy production methods, so I won't even bother suggesting anything specific.
More wealth X fewer customers = reduced profits. So they try to squeeze harder, and they start using slave-labor metrics to guide their decisions, and the economy continues to become more and more suceptible to disruption as fewer and fewer people actually have the power to make choices in it. Seriously, what's the difference between Soviet bureaucrats and today's wealthy capitalists? Either way you've got 1% of the population planning the economy.
You are presuming a zero sum game, which wealth isn't... at least true wealth.
I also mentioned that personal liberty is the key. When you have, as you claim, "1% of the population planning the economy" you also don't have personal liberty.
"Western nations" don't have a monopoly over real wealth creation, and there is a very real possibility that they could collapse. The reason they will collapse is sort of what you are alluding to though, that personal liberties are being taken away and that ordinary citizens no longer can participate in the marketplace to be able to break monopolies and enforced restrictions on competition due to a government being bought by folks who hate humanity.
There do exist people who would like to be the wealthiest person in a society of people who barely are able to scratch out a living in the world, and others who wouldn't mind being the poorest in a society of mostly wealthy people and access to abundant resources in this universe. Which are you?
I'll also be the first to admit that liberty is being lost in western nations, and if anything that is why you aren't seeing much wealth creation either, and why this current generation of kids will likely not have access to the same kinds of resources that their parents had. Most of that is because people who could create that wealth are being stopped from following through with their ideas that might make a difference. That 99% if you want to be blunt. A small elite committee simply doesn't have the brains necessary to be able to make the judgements in terms of what may be successful or not.
Could you cite your reference for one American farmer feeding nearly 1000 people, please?
The last number I've seen was less than 200 depending upon the source you check.
So - now the shoe's on the other foot
The same shoe? Doesn't sound very comfortable...
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
At some point solar power satellites become economically feasible as well.
And no one has mentioned Cryptonomicon yet, how disappointing.
2012 is the year of Finux on the the portable!
You do whatever you want, even deny the truth of the state of the art. Today, 1st world countries aren't independent when it comes to Nuclear, oil and gaz. And as of today, none of the alternatives can sustain our whole economy. Solar and wind, tidal, etc aren't continuous sources of energy. You can't run a country only on them. Geothermal only applies to a fraction of the geographical locations involved. Hydro just isn't enough.
I'm open to new technologies. Please cite a technology (or a mix of) where 1st world countries could be independent with and that could sustain the whole countries.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
solar and wind are great, but you can't rely on them for much of your production. What are you going to do on windless nights? They just cannot be your principal source of energy production. You got to have something serious for the core of your production. For such serious sources, 1st world countries depend on other countries for their raw material.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
It's not an all or nothing at all thing. We're going to have to accept that our energy is going to come from a mix of sources.
Look at what Germany has done with solar in just the recent past. Central Europe is not the sunniest place in the world, but it's the equal of several nuclear plants. Once they get batteries and storage better, solar could become the main source of power for Germany.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Oh, I see what you're doing here. Of course, Solar *could* become much. But for now it can just help reduce the bill a bit, not much else. But cut our nuclear and oil supply, and the crisis that will ensue will be of a scale we haven't seen for a long while.
And for Germany, they agreed to decommissioning their nuclear plants but the cost if reopening all the old oil and coal plants. Yeah, nobody's talking about that one. That was not a green thing, just an anti-nuclear thing. Nobody knows what is really going to happen there.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
heaven, the word is heaven
The kid at the end of your street has bigger guns than you do, and .. politely insists .. that you buy his lemonade.
With no police or gub'mint to protect you from this very direct form of not-oppression, you're left to your own devices to try and buy more guns than him - and thus, oppress him, if you don't want to buy his lemonade.
Fast forward through a couple of years of this playing out, and say hello to your friendly neighborhood somali warlord.
Bussard's fusion reactor project is still going. I don't remember the link but they're currently building their 6th prototype, with funding in-progress for the 7th, and (in theory anyways) plans for a 100MW full-size reactor within ~5 years. I don't know what the odds are of any of it happening, if it's vaporware, etc, but if true that could begin moving us towards other sources of power, hopefully ones that could be more community-oriented.
I have *NO* idea what kind of rare materials they may be using for the containment vessel however, and they certainly appear to be quite intensive, both in labor and technical qualifications.
I keep seeing this BS about no auto industry after the bailout, but honestly, other than losing the 'big three', wouldn't all of the support infrastructure just move to domestic manufacturing of components for foreign manufacturers? I mean Nissan, Honda, Subaru, Toyota, and Mazda all have huge presences in the US in auto manufacturing, and I bet given the collapse of GM/Chrysler's american divisions (GM China seems likely to survive), we'd begin seeing either a larger European, Indian, or Korean presence to fill the newfound void.
Honestly the biggest thing holding America back at this point is 'inertia'. If we didn't have so many politcians dicking around directly in mismanaged financial endeavors, and instead stimulating new business, perhaps we'd have leaner, more agile existing businesses that would be changing with the times rather than thinking they'll always have a parachute as they plummet into irrelevancy. (This covers a broad swath of US businesses besides auto manufacturing obviously, and while I understand wanting to keep a particular area's economy prosperous, that should be brought around through the work of local businesses, not multi-state/national entities who have no loyalty to your community or economy beyond how it makes them a tidy profit.)
> by hiring people that can't quite afford the product they're producing
Oh here comes another uneducated amurrican repeating what they believe will buy them intellectual credit among their peers.
One data point that is not in agreement with your theory: Workers at NASA produce something that they are 'unable to afford'. Moreover, they seem to be qute happy working there and proud of their product. Many smart people are also proud of what NASA produces. Now fit this observation into your theory, citizen. Or ignore it ank keep thinking you have the solution to this mess. Yessir!
That whole section is a bunch of self serving advertising.
.. were not initially designed with Internet security in mind" link
"Windows NT
AccountKiller
"Work on NT started before before work on the web itself did"
...
.. provided TCP/IP functionality .. back in 1994-1995"
Good fucking Grief on a Candy Stick, would you please take this self serving revisionist rewriting of history elsewhere, to a fiction writing forum perhaps, like Wikipedia
"Trumpet Winsock
AccountKiller
Dave Cutler joined MS to work on NT in 1988. Work on the web appears to have started in 1990, and NT was well underway by the time the web was publically announced in 1991. So what is your problem? Do you have some alternate history we should hear about?
What the fuck has Trumpet Winsock in 1994-1995 got to do with design work on NT starting before the web existed? Let alone anything to do with whether NT was designed for internet security or not?
You sound like a raving lunatic bringing that up. Nothing you link to even relates to the stuff you're railing against.
The only thing you've shown so far is that you have a massive irrational chip on your shoulder about wikipedia for some unknown reason.