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.'"

Comments

You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[For a Free Internet]

It has to be smashed, and the only force with the power to smash it is the international proletariat. Workers of the World, Unite! For the communism of Lenin and Trotsky!

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Anonymous Coward]

You're speaking to the wrong audience. The workers of the world are mostly in South and East Asia and South America. The West is full of bourgeoisie and labour aristocracy: the fat American on minimum wage with an iPhone is a parasite too.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[For a Free Internet]

yOU'RE A REACTIONARY MORON AND A DOGFART sniffer and probably an Italian sympathizer!!!!!

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[PopeRatzo]

The workers of the world are mostly in South and East Asia and South America.

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Opportunist]

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?

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Kjella]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Teancum]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Fned]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Pieroxy]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Kjella]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[chihowa]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[PopeRatzo]

Really? Then why are American corporations measuring their success in terms of "profit per employee" lately?

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[PopeRatzo]

And please, no solar or wind power in your response.

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[oreiasecaman]

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

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Teancum]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Teancum]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Teancum]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[VanHook]

I thought the plan was to use up the oil in the rest of the world first, and only then use the oil in North America.

At some point solar power satellites become economically feasible as well.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Pieroxy]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Pieroxy]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[PopeRatzo]

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.

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Pieroxy]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:You can't opt out of capitalist imperialism

[__aancvu2993]

> 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!

This is why we have Tor

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:This is why we have Tor

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say that now, only because of the article to wihch your statements are associated. When this was repeatedly pointed out in the past on slashdot, such comments were troll moderated to death because it was contrary to the irrational politics and ideaologies so many pirates love to spew forth on slashdot. Its a wonderful example of how it could have been a nice exchange on slashdot which was repeatedly, completely prevented because censorship of ideas which undermine their ideaologies and politics was more important than frank, honest discussions. It used to be that slashdot was more about the open exchange of ideas rather than attempting to push radical ideaologies against society; while censoring anyone who speaks out against such illogical agendas.

I completely agree with you.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to an extent. But until everyone, ever, uses it, it is vulnerable to fake nodes and someone with plenty of IPs under a fake company. (AKA, spying groups)

Not only that, laws could be passed in any, or even most, countries that prevents you from becoming a node because it counts as being a server, which most ISPs actually already have in their EULAs as things you aren't allowed to do on residential lines from what I understand.
At least, something similar could be stretched to include Tor as such a service if they were annoyed enough and/or some big terrorist attack were to happen.

With systems that use ideas like onion routing, they really need to be an all or nothing approach.
Closer to nothing (like it is now), the least security. Closer to all, there should be very little problems.

One thing these systems need to do, however, is deal with leaks better, if they wish to allow anonymity for the simpleton.
Plugins for most web browsers, for example, can leak your IP all over the place.
Nobody wants to have to have a separate browser for browsing anonymously due to some new tyrannic overlords wanting to screw over the common man, so until it does, it will remain a niche.

I remember seeing some experiment where people were able to make darknets that worked entirely inside the browser, no installs needed due to the new HTML5 features.
And another that equally hid secure data inside normal port 80 traffic, making it much harder to filter out through awful port filtering.
And of course there is also things that deal with files themselves. The OFFS, or owner-free filesystem, was an interesting idea that splits files up in to such tiny parts that they could technically be owned by many files, and until they are actually formed, you couldn't really say "hey you, that there is copyrighted music!" since I could just turn around and claim their alphabet soup was as equally copyright infringing.

These and other tech will really need to mature a lot if they wish to create a secure internet away from increasingly abusive tactics and plain spying.
However, they will also equally open up a world disgust to levels unseen previously, whether it is child porn or actual terrorists.
But this is the cost for ultimate freedom.
One solution would be an open directory which is also self-regulated, sort of like a grand Web of Trust system. No censorship + ratings is ideally a much better system, but it still allows such content to exist and be spread. (could still be abused, though)
This is also another thing that people would rather not be associated with. "Using Tor, you pedo!"
Preconceptions could be used against people to shoot down any sort of attempts to increase popularity of such systems.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[tripleevenfall]

Sealand is SO last year, now it's servers hosted on drone aircraft...

Re:This is why we have Tor

[Ihmhi]

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.

What about a situation wherein you move data from Server A in Germany to Server B in Switzerland? It never crosses your computer, all you do is send the command.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[tripleevenfall]

Well, no, according to the comments on that article the RIAA would send their navy out to shoot the drones down.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[BForrester]

You know that, for most intents and purposes, money is just data, right?

Re:This is why we have Tor

[bacon.frankfurter]

That's either still in development or imaginary legend lore/vaporware, much like the TacoCopter.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[necro81]

What about a situation wherein you move data from Server A in Germany to Server B in Switzerland? It never crosses your computer, all you do is send the command

You score a technical point, but I have to ask: what would be the practical usefulness of doing that. It's like hoarding money, or ammo, or food: although you can wave it around and its presence might make you feel secure, if you don't actually use it all you've gone is created a big pile.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[spire3661]

Actually its power, data is just a means of transmitting that power.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's irrational politics. Let's say a certain type of gene therapy is illegal in the United States but available in Thailand. I go there, get treatment, and then return with the results of those treatments. I'm not going to be arrested for that. Why then would I be arrested for bringing back profits from a foreign company I own? If I own a brewery in Kentucky they won't arrest me just because I live in Utah. It's completely silly.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[sg_oneill]

I still think pirate bay should use ronpaul blimps. Clustering up the absurdity makes easier shooting I reckon.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[fermion]

The banking analogy is really good. But we have to take it further. While storing your money in a swiss or Caribbean account provides great benefit with lesser risk, due to high costs, storing anything other than warez on Data Haven is a high risk low benefit venture that do not justify the high costs.

If I am earning 1 million dollars a year, one supposes that having the money deposited in an offshore account with a reputation of safety may be a good thing. I can pay them much less than would be required in US taxes, and have full access to the money through a credit card which is funded through the laundered money. The bank is making money hand over fist, so they have little incentive to snitch on the criminal activity, take my money, or mine my data. If the bank is sold, presumably I can get my money out.

Now take Haven. If I put real data on their servers, like the banks there are limited laws that prevent them from doing as they wish with my property. However, if Haven does mine my data or sell it to a competitor there is no way for me to know if Haven was the leak of someone else. And if I do want pull my data, there is no way for me to be sure if the data has really been pulled. There are no court or enforcement system for my to fall back on if the owners of the severs are behaving badly. If Haven is sold and my data goes along with it, there is little I can do to stop the process..

The thing that the people who hate regulation never seem to admit to is that the success of countries like the US is the highly regulated, highly managed, business environment. Capital flows freely because we do not have worry about each little transaction. Sales are fast, acceleration is maximized, as any problems can be solved later through a well defined process. I don't worry about safety because it is regulated. Just think of the economic damage that is done by pink slime, GMO, and tainted spinach, all caused by lack of regulation and labeling. Millions of consumers wasting time checking the label, thinking about purchases, instead of just consuming. Of course the fact that real earning for the people who tend to spend the most money, percentage wise, is a more significant problem, but the lack of efficiency due to the desired of opacity a few greedy people.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[Ihmhi]

Well, you could remotely manage things that are technically illegal in your home country.

The server company's web logs could show that you never downloaded anything. You could move stuff from place to place (automatically, even), or just spread it around in general.

Re:This is why we have Tor

[Yvanhoe]

> Tor onions. Are they good or are they whack? I think they are outdated. The thing is, if the chaser is a government like China and has narrowed its options to a list of suspects, it is easy to break the connection of every suspect for 5 minutes and check if the onion service is still on.

If you want to put sensitive content online, do it through a DHT service and let the world mirror it.

ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:ah, libertarians

[TheRaven64]

Libertarian, n:

A person who believes that oppression is best handled by the private sector.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

False. You are an idiot. Being an idiot is your right. But stop spreading it, jackass.

Re:ah, libertarians

[darjen]

Because government's track record is so much better?

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrat, n:
A person who believes the more government you have, the freer you are.

Republican, n:
A person who believes that every American is born with a mandate to love Jesus and murderously despise foreigners.

Inaccurate and inflammatory statemens are fun!

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anrego]

I was amused.. people need to lighten up!

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians have been repeatedly shown to have the least sense of humour of all Internet kooks.

A good joke does, after all, tend to be determined implicitly by a vote of peers then spread freely by them. A single powerful man cannot monopolise all the jokes, nor will the covetous dreamer get rich from marketing his jokes to wealthy men. Frankly it's only a matter of time before libertarians declare humour to be a dangerous manifestation of statism.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Government does protect me from the libertarian sociopaths, so while there are limits, generally the more of it the better if it keeps people like you chained up.

We need to identify your kind and tax you more. Just you. Double what everyone else pays.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Ultra64]

That's the correct definition of every republican I ever met.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

... the more of it the better if it keeps people like you chained up.

We need to identify your kind and tax you more. Just you. Double what everyone else pays.

If only these "sociopaths" were as well adjusted as you...

Re:ah, libertarians

[JamesP]

Well, no, they don't think that

They usually think that the Government does a excellent job at it.

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

Libertarian, n:

A person who understands the difference between government oppression and free market and prefers free market.

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

aka, an idiot who doesn't know history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency

"Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guarding to private military contracting work. At its height, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America, causing the state of Ohio to outlaw the agency due to fears it could be hired as a private army or militia."

and do you know what these guys did when people tried to exercise their freedoms?

the rise of pinkertons is why we have things like minimum wage, hours per week to work, no child labor, etc.

because without government, the private sector WILL rape you and enslave you, until the people get fed enough and fight back. why? MORE PROFIT, MOOOOORRRREEEE. there is no other motivation. and this motivation blows right past respect for freedom, or anything else

the government sucks. its just that compared to all other options, the government is the best option

Re:ah, libertarians

[tqk]

Libertarians have been repeatedly shown to have the least sense of humour of all Internet kooks.

You should read up on Russian Soviet era Black Humour. Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it isn't funny.

Re:ah, libertarians

[tqk]

and do you know what these guys did when people tried to exercise their freedoms?

So, why wasn't your much vaunted gov't there to protect them when they tried to exercise their freedoms? Sitting on its hands? Toadying to deep pocketed corporatists? Accepting bribes to keep their hands off?

At least Sitting Bull had the guts to stand up against the bastards.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Guppy06]

Republican, n:
A person who believes that every American is born with a mandate to love Jesus and murderously despise foreigners.

If you think that's an inaccurate statement, you haven't been paying attention to the primary debates.

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

There is no child labour because of industrial revolution and capitalism, which increased productivity of the population to the point, when parents didn't have to send their kids to work.

Or did you think somebody forced the parents to do so? Or do you believe that gov't has wealth that it gets from anywhere else rather than stealing it from the people who produce it?

Gov't has nothing, children always worked until free market capitalism and industrialisation increased people's productivity by applying savings as investment to build/acquire better tools.

It's capital that makes people more productive, because capital creates better tools, and so instead of a stick, the person gets a shovel and then an excavator and can do work of hundreds of people by himself.

Without free market capitalism and industrialisation children still would have worked since very young age, and now, that USA has abandoned the principles of freedom, children WILL WORK ONCE AGAIN, and they will starve and that's what your bankrupt ideology is leading to, circlehead.

As to pinkertons, etc. - I would absolutely protect my private property with private security force, and that's my absolute right as a property owner and it's my responsibility as well.

Gov't is tyranny, and those who promote more of it are the tyrants.

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

Oh, and as to the profit motive - that's right. That's the ONLY motive that increases the overall wealth in the market because it allows allocating resources efficiently. There is no other mechanism known to men to do so, no amount of central planning, no amount of dictatorship and totalitarianism can do as good of a job allocating resources as private individuals and businesses within the context of free market (market free of gov't intervention).

The more profit the better.

Profit is VIRTUE IN ITSELF, because it is the only real indicator telling us whether the enterprise is worthwhile or worthless and which way to move.

Re:ah, libertarians

[BitZtream]

As someone who grew up in a republican house, I'm not sure your statements are inaccurate. Probably not inflammatory to them either.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Shotgun]

So, your response to an argument for a free market, is to argue that government will abandon it's true role (to maintain a free market), in exchange for a cowardly position of supporting thugs? And you dare call someone an idiot?

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

no, that's not my response. try again, you _____

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

your personal freedoms will be gleefully trampled upon by the free market were it not restrained by a government. do you understand that?

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

i only read your first sentence. then i laughed and read no more. it must be nice to just make stuff up

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

the government is warped by corporate interests, and moves away from its intended masters, the people

do we

a. remove the government, so the corporations can rape you directly
b. remove the corrupting influence of corporations, so it is accountable to the people, as intended

so do we kill the patient, or cure him?

(cue republican talking points on healthcare, which amounts to basically "just die already, we have a profit principle in healthcare which is more important than your health")

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

Personal freedoms cannot be 'gleefully tramped upon by the free market', because personal freedoms - rights of the individual, are only meaningful in the context of the relationship between the individual and the collective.

There is no such thing as a 'right' that defines interaction between two peers, two individuals or two businesses or individual and a business (businesses are people, and what I mean by that is that people own businesses. Corporate protection by gov't creates a different kind of a business - a gov't protected entity that is above a normal individual or a business).

A 'right' is only there to set limit the amount of interference that gov't can impose upon an individual or a business. A 'right' is not there to define interaction between 2 individuals, it has no meaning in that context. One person killing another person is just murder, but it's not violation of a right to life in the sense that it is not an organisation that has law in its hands that is killing the individual with the silent cooperation of the voting (or non-voting) majority.

What I am saying is that there is no meaningful definition of the word 'right' outside of the interaction between and individual and the collective.

As to free market 'trampling' upon freedoms - that's a pure nonsense declaration designed to confuse the weak-minded.

Free market is not lawlessness, it is a system that sets into law what a contract is, what private property is and it is designed to maximise individual rights, including right to property and it is designed to uphold the contract law.

If the contract law is not upheld by the government, then it must be upheld in other ways, so private courtrooms and private security force and private insurance is just as good and I have no preference towards the government solution at all.

Free market is a system of voluntary participation, which part of 'voluntary' means 'trampling freedoms'? None. It's your Orwellian inner-tyrant talking.

Re:ah, libertarians

[sociocapitalist]

"...its just that compared to all other options, the government is the best option"

You might want to rethink this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-better-life-index-2011-5#1-australia-11
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries_slide_11.html
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45ejmi/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2/#content

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

if organization A is larger than organization B, and there is no rule of law, which is possible only with a government, then organization A is free and ENCOURAGED in your view to engage in all manner of vile conduct

rule of the strongest, warlords, somalia, etc.

this is your utopia?

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

Certainly private health care and private insurance did a much better job at actually getting care to the people than gov't mandated BS system does. Same with everything else, including SS, individual freedom to live one's life as one sees fit, this includes the right to do drugs. Then there are wages and money, education, due process etc.

As to your fallacy of a question:

so do we kill the patient, or cure him?

you are obviously approaching it from your tyrannical anti-freedom perspective, which includes establishing a big enough gov't to steal and redistribute wealth and to affect the free market forces in order to achieve some form of socialist/fascist goals (and yes, fascism is a form of socialism too, it's just smarter than socialism).

The correct question is this: are you interested in freedom or not? People came to USA to get freedom, freedom from their tyrannical governments, and freedom allowed the people to become very wealthy, the creation of wealth was unlike anywhere else in any previous time period on this planet. That was done with almost a non-existing government, definitely without 99% of all the regulations, definitely without any income/corporate/payroll taxes, definitely without SS, Medicare, wage and price controls, currency printing and all of the unconstitutional wars.

The correct question is this: WHERE ARE PEOPLE GOING TO GO NEXT, when you turn USA into what they ran away from in the first place?

Well, I know how to do it, today it's a bit different, you don't just run away from a country, you run away from the system by using it in such a manner, as to prevent the system from tracking all of your activities.

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

given the choice between that and places with weak government and no social safety nets (aka, a few ultrarich and teeming poor and corruption everywhere, aka cameroon, bangladesh, philippines, etc.), i'll cast my lot with the stoic gloomy nords any day

or rather, i'll convince my country and government. i'm not leaving my country, i'm fighting for it and winning it back from the hordes of the faux news propagandized and stupid, who won't stop until the USA is just like cameroon, bangladesh, philippines, etc.: middle class decimated, a few ultrarich, hordes of poor. that's the republican end game of "freedom" (aka, freedom for the rich and corporations only: no level playing field, no quality education regardless of background, no healthcare unless you are rich)

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

if you are poor, do you just die in the street?

you are a special combination of callousness and stupidity aren't you?

you won't be happy until you see the russian revolution or the french revolution reenacted, will you? this seems to be the only way certain people such as yourself get educated about what happens when you systematically condemn people to a lesser and lesser existence just for being poor in the first place. which is a direct result of your thinking, but you're too dense to see it

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

Nonsense.

There is only one law, that, which governs. The government of USA was puny, tiny, compared to what it is today exactly when the individual freedoms were maximised and allowed the people to create the most wealth (and then they squandered it over the next 100 years of-course by growing government and reducing freedoms).

Government has the authority to set the law based on the silent or explicit cooperation of the majority. If people rise today and march towards your capital city and then take down the government, then it's over, that gov't doesn't exist at all, but unless the people do it, then the gov't has at least the implicit cooperation from the people.

Every State is responsible for upholding some form of criminal and contract law, and the size of the business has no bearing on what the gov't can do to it (indeed, we KNOW what the gov't can do to businesses, anything, from total annihilation to enormous illegal bailouts and even starting illegal wars to provide for very lucrative contracts).

Size of government does not matter.

Size of government does not matter as long as it can perform the actual mandate that is given to it, and none of what YOU are talking about is in that mandate.

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

if you are poor, do you just die in the street?

- if YOUR principles take over, that's EXACTLY what's going to happen.

That's exactly what happened in those revolutions you are referring to, and it continued for decades much after the revolutions themselves were over.

YOUR ideology is going to cause that, it's a fact, because it was your ideology that caused it in those previous cases.

USA was designed to be the freest country in the world artificially and it created the most of the wealth in a short period of time while it had that maximum amount of freedom, and the people became wealthier for it, not poorer.

Your problem I already know - you are a jealous person, hungry for power, but jealous of natural success of others, and you wish to steal much of that, not just to participate in a voluntary exchange in the free market, you want actual redistribution of work of some towards others (and really, the underlying goal of all such ideologues is gain of personal power). I see you as an impotent tyrant, impotent, because you just can't get there yourself, but somebody ELSE will get there with the same ideology, and there WILL BE poor people dying on the streets.

Same as after the Russian revolution there were people dying on the streets, people killed in the civil wars, people starving because the 'new regime' simply took everything from them that they ever worked for and created.

There were no people dying on the streets prior to the Revolutions, and that's the sad part - someone like you is going to lead the people in that direction and they don't even understand it.

As to your implication that it will somehow concern those who DO understand it - yes, it will concern them, in that it will decrease their overall wealth, because wars are just bad for the economy, they don't produce anything of any value that the markets want, they destroy.

But plenty of the people who know what this is all about have better plans today, than they had long ago, it's a global world.

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

go

go to greenland, tierra del fuego, somaliland, western montana... go, create your utopia, like utopian enthusiasts in the past in the american frontier

stop destroying my society with your ignorant WHARRRGARRBBBBLLEE of the clueless naive enthusiast with no understanding of history or human nature

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

It's not about 'going', it's about setting the affairs in an appropriate manner in the global economy. The physical location doesn't matter anymore, didn't you know that, headsqure?

Re:ah, libertarians

[sociocapitalist]

Yes that's pretty much where I'm at though I don't see much light at the end of this particular tunnel.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Fned]

So, why wasn't your much vaunted gov't there to protect them when they tried to exercise their freedoms?

They weren't doing anything, as the government was comparitively small and weak back then. As referenced directly in the post you responded to without reading all the words.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Fned]

There is no child labour because of industrial revolution and capitalism, which increased productivity of the population to the point, when parents didn't have to send their kids to work.

"Shit, nobody's sending their kids to work anymore. Quick! Write up some child labor laws to make it look like we deserve the credit!"

Re:ah, libertarians

[tqk]

do we

a. remove the government, so the corporations can rape you directly
b. remove the corrupting influence of corporations, so it is accountable to the people, as intended

How are you going to accomplish "b"? The "corrupting influence of corporations" only exists if politicians are corruptible, and they almost Universally are.

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

There are always outliers in every case, but it's not like gov't can force a massive change without the society actually going in that direction in the first place.

Gov't can't today dictate that all cars must fly instead of drive on the roads. Why can't the gov't do so? Because we don't have real flying cars yet.

Once the economy/society creates the flying cars (if ever), then the gov't can come up with whatever laws outlawing normal driving cars, because even with a huge demand for flying cars and most people buying those instead, some people would still drive.

Same with child labour.
Same with racism.
Same with anything that society moves towards first and then some politician decides it's time for him to make a name for himself on a non-controversial issue that will only concern a tiny minority of cases but not the general population, who has already accepted the new reality WITHOUT the need for any such laws.

Re:ah, libertarians

[circletimessquare]

your religious devotion to free market fundamentalism is an inspiration to us all

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

Oh, and if you think that what I wrote here is nonsense, consider that when society is NOT ready or is actively unwilling to participate in some nonsense law that is pushed by a crazy gov't of some kind, then the society actively finds ways around the laws, generally disregards them and creates means to go around them one way or another, and the only real consequence of this is that the costs go up, the efficiencies and quality go down.

This is true for every such situation, for example prohibition or the war on drugs or war on prostitution, whatever.

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

It's better to believe in freedom than in slavery, such as in your case.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

But plenty of the people who know what this is all about have better plans today, than they had long ago, it's a global world.

Judging by the moderation you usually get, no, there aren't enough people who know what this is, and they have no plans. They'll be destroyed in the upcoming storm, and take you down with them.

As the Borg would say, resistance is futile.

Re:ah, libertarians

[lgw]

You cannot ever have a government that is not corrupt. Oh, sure, you can imagine one, but like me imagining that circletimessquare will learn to operate the shift key, it's not ever going to actually happen.

So, if a corrupt government is stipulated, what's the best plan? Not anarchy, but a weak government. One that has the resources to do the minimum sorts of stuff a government has to do to call itself that (which is quite a small fraction of our current budget), but that's all. The commodities markets, for example, work quite well with just a bit of government enforcement, and quite a few rules imposed by the (private) operators of those markets.

And, since you brought it up, you do realize that you can't have all the healthcare you want, right? Just like we can't all drive the car we want, and we can't all live in the house we'd like to and so on? So, given there's not an infinite supply of MRIs and OB/Gyns, how would you ration healthcare circletimessquare? Hmmm? If not a market then what? Government groups that decide who gets what? And if there's not a huge profit to be made in finding the cure for cancer, do you expect it to be cured? Can you point to a time in history when technological innovation wasn't profit-driven (and wasn't at a crawl)? Or is that just one more thing you'd like to imagine?

Re:ah, libertarians

[dunkelfalke]

Friend, don't ever argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Re:ah, libertarians

[interkin3tic]

At least we can agree on one thing: fuck authoritarians. By far, the least popular corner of the ideological diamond. Among people who do not have power in the government that is.

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

It wasn't perfect but it used to work, it was called the Constitution. Of-course they abandoned it due to their Marxist and/or fascist ideologies, they used the desire of the masses for free bread and circuses and willingness of the masses to pay for that with what actually matters - freedom.

There can be no accountability to the people without the rule of law ABOVE the government, and the rule of law was the Constitution. The circle-blabber-mouth here believes that the Constitution is outdated and that Marxism must prevail in order to achieve his perfect dream of totalitarian utopia (hopefully with him at the helm of power). And that's the problem, isn't it?

Some want power and thus they hate the rule of law ABOVE the gov't, and they buy the people who are ready to give away the only thing that keeps them free and able to build a real economy for themselves - the very power that is set above the government that prevents the government from becoming a totalitarian system that destroys freedom.

It's very unfortunate but it works.

Re:ah, libertarians

[spiralx]

I've noticed that some of the most rabid libertarians on here, including roman_mir I believe, are actually Russian emigrees.

Re:ah, libertarians

[shutdown -p now]

In US context, I don't see anything inaccurate about your statements. They're just as spot on as GP's definition of libertarian.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother with GP, he's a well-known Randist troll. He keeps regugitating the same most extreme libetarian arguments over and over, even those that were repeatedly debunked.

Heck, he had explicitly stated that he believes that Gilded Age was the pinnacle of American civilization. You can't get any more retarded than that.

Re:ah, libertarians

[green1]

Give up, some people are too stupid to understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchy.

You could argue until you're blue in the face, people like him would still not see your point and would still cry for an ever bigger government.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot ever have a government that is not corrupt.

You cannot ever have a free market environment which is not corrupt either. You're just attempting to frame government as the only source of corruption in order to promote your simpleminded utopian vision: if we see corruption in government, remove government and the corruption goes away!

Real world doesn't work like that, kid. There are always going to be people who seek power over others and are willing to use unethical means to get it. If you take away government power, they'll just get it through corporate power structures. In fact, by shifting these people into corporations, you limit the power of the people to deal with the bastards. You can, in a liberal democracy not yet too badly damaged by libertarians, vote a bad politician out and get somebody better in. You can't vote out a CEO.

So, if a corrupt government is stipulated, what's the best plan? Not anarchy, but a weak government. One that has the resources to do the minimum sorts of stuff a government has to do to call itself that (which is quite a small fraction of our current budget), but that's all. The commodities markets, for example, work quite well with just a bit of government enforcement, and quite a few rules imposed by the (private) operators of those markets.

You don't seem to have noticed what happened ~4 years ago as the culmination of a decade or two of libertarian policies wrecking the the government's ability to regulate markets and banking. Hint: it isn't actually a positive datapoint for the minarchist point of view.

And, since you brought it up, you do realize that you can't have all the healthcare you want, right? Just like we can't all drive the car we want, and we can't all live in the house we'd like to and so on? So, given there's not an infinite supply of MRIs and OB/Gyns, how would you ration healthcare circletimessquare? Hmmm? If not a market then what?

You don't seem to have noticed that there isn't an infinite demand for MRIs and OB/GYNs. If you reduced the price of a MRI to $10, I would not be getting hundreds of MRIs. Neither would you. I am not female, but if I was, I would only want to have one baby per year or so, and I wouldn't want to have more than a few total in my lifetime.

Healthcare services are not like other services. You don't need them until you need them, but when you do, you really need them, and your need is every bit as dire no matter what your economic condition.

Government groups that decide who gets what?

How about doctors making objective decisions about what their patients need? It seems to work out pretty well for countries with socialized medicine. Republican/Libertarian nonsense about death panels is just propaganda and lies. Nothing like that is seen in the real world socialized healthcare systems which actually exist. Or even in the minimally socialist insurance company welfare law we got passed in the US a few years ago, for that matter.

What's more, fully socialist healthcare systems generally deliver better health care at a lower cost than the horribly broken U.S. system. If you believe otherwise, you're the victim of another form of Republican/Libertarian propaganda. Go look it up -- US medical spending, whether measured as a percentage of GDP or in absolute terms per citizen, is much higher than a typical Northern European "welfare state" with socialized medicine, and the results are worse.

And if there's not a huge profit to be made in finding the cure for cancer, do you expect it to be cured?

Oh, little libertarian, how comically naive your view of the world is.

Lots of groundbreaking medical research is done not-for-profit, funded by the evil gubmint. R&D spending by big businesses like pharma companies tends to be oriented towards productization, not basic research. Beancounters

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

I noticed that the most devoted Marxists are born into systems that never saw the inevitable result of such bankrupt ideologies (yet).

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

There were no people dying on the streets prior to the Revolutions,

Hahaha oh wow.

Re:ah, libertarians

[spiralx]

I would say touché, but I'm not a Marxist :)

Re:ah, libertarians

[roman_mir]

The only people who were 'dying on the streets' prior to Russian revolution as an example, were policeman killed by the terrorists that wanted a regime change.

Re:ah, libertarians

[tehcyder]

Libertarian, n:

A person who believes that oppression is best handled by the private sector.

It's not oppression, it's merely extending my freedom from my boot to your face, for ever.

Re:ah, libertarians

[tehcyder]

Free market, n:

A fictional economic entity. See also Invisible Hand, Perfect Information, Perfect Competition.

Re:ah, libertarians

[TheRaven64]

If only I could mod in threads where I'd posted. It's been a little while since a Slashdot post actually made me laugh aloud...

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

You two need to get a room and work out your frustrations.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Ultra64]

I'm not trolling. I live in southern Louisiana.

Re:ah, libertarians

[lgw]

Do you just make this stuff up?

You can't vote out a CEO.

I've seen 3 CEOs voted out thus far, and I've only worked for 7 companies. Happens all the time.

You don't seem to have noticed what happened ~4 years ago as the culmination of a decade or two of libertarian policies wrecking the the government's ability to regulate markets

Had the weird mortgage-backed securities been traded on the comoddities markets, that crisis would have been averted. Those markets work very well. The CBE actually went to the governemnt and warned them about the impending crisis, and asked to be allowed to set up just such a public market before things got out of hand. The government rebuffed them (likely due to the intense Goldman Sachs influence).

Lots of groundbreaking medical research is done not-for-profit, funded by the evil gubmint. R&D

Not so much. Most of the day-to-day bio-tech research, even in universities, is corporately funded. Even a lot of the open-eneded stuff like sequencing the genome had a lot of venture capital involvement.

Finally, you seem to have health care and health insurance all tangled up. That our biggest problem IMO with healthecare in America right now - the two need to be more distant.

Re:ah, libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Free market is a system of voluntary participation

of mindless libertarian drones. 8h/365d of preaching for FREE.

Waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Waste of effort

[Lumpy]

"Nobody believes the UK couldn't take Sealand if they want to. "

Last time they were seen in action was the Falkland Islands wher they had their asses handed to them by a bunch of natives. They are a shadow of what they once were.

Re:Waste of effort

[metacell]

Sealand is no Argentina, though.

Re:Waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why Argentina took over the Falklands and renamed them the Malvinas?

No, wait, the UK still owns them.

Moreover, Sealand is not Argentina; a rowboat and a machine gun could take over the whole "country".

Re:Waste of effort

[SuricouRaven]

You seem to be confused: The UK *won* that war. Quite easily, actually.

Re:Waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly there are no natives of the Falkland Islands nor have there ever been. The only occupants have been European (or of European origin) colonnial powers - France, Spain, USA, Argentina, Britain. That's why sovereignty is such a thorny question.

Secondly the UK won a decisive victory in the Falklands War which ended with the total capitulation of the Argentinian forces.

That said, the UK and all her allies have been having their asses repeatedly handed to them by a bunch of natives in Afghanistan for much of the last decade, which is significantly more recent than the Falklands War.

Oh no. I've allowed myself to be trolled, haven't I?

Re:Waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, what part of the UK winning decisively against Argentina did you miss?

Re:Waste of effort

[91degrees]

The main reason the UK hasn't done anything is that nobody on Sealand has actually broken any UK laws, so there's nothing to do. The owner could make a case for ownership of the platform under UK law, but I think he'd have a hard time convincing the courts of statehood.

There was a ruling in 1968 that it was outside British jurisdiction, but that's a lot different from accepting it as a sovereign state, and since then, British territorial waters have been extended.

Re:Waste of effort

[serviscope_minor]

Last time they were seen in action was the Falkland Islands wher they had their asses handed to them by a bunch of natives. They are a shadow of what they once were.

Who won? And at what relative cost?

Also the "natives" were armed with mostly French and British and American kit.

Re:Waste of effort

[dkleinsc]

Last time they were seen in action was the Falkland Islands wher they had their asses handed to them by a bunch of natives.

Prince Andrew, Duke of York (who was there) and Margaret Thatcher (PM at the time) would beg to differ, for 2 reasons:
1. Argentina had fairly sophisticated military equipment, with very effective missiles and infantry, and were most definitely not 'a bunch of natives'.
2. The UK won and had 1/3 the casualties of Argentina.

Re:Waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time the topic of Sealand comes up I find myself wishing the royal navy would use it for a live fire exercise or demolitions practice and put an end to the charade once and for all. After all, they could probably put forward a pretty strong case for ownership of the thing - they built it after all.

Re:Waste of effort

[Ihmhi]

Last time they were seen in action was the Falkland Islands

Technically this is correct.

No one sees the SAS coming.

Re:Waste of effort

[idontgno]

3. The war was prosecuted with wildly uneven lines of communication. The RN task force operated at over 8,000 miles from home base. The Argentinians had less than 300 miles from their bases to the combat zones, and although this was a long haul for their aircraft (limiting combat time), their primary logistics were much simpler; especially since the Argentine mainland was never threatened. Interdiction would be limited to air and submarine attacks on transport and combat sorties. At least on paper, this was a huge advantage to Argentina, so much so that "The U.S. Navy considered a successful counter-invasion by the British to be 'a military impossibility'".

Re:Waste of effort

[Oswald McWeany]

No-one has done anything illegal... except for shoot at civilians in boats. Stage armed invasions. Use and take British military equipment without permission. Kidnap foreign nationals. Data Piracy. Tax evasion. Smuggling. Oh and Various cases for treason could be applied too.

Residents of "Sealand" have broken lots of laws and show themselves to be quite indifferent to the laws of the land. The reason no-one deals with Sealand is because it would be a political hassel. They've broken plenty of laws.

Re:Waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

>>with very effective missiles and infantry
Agree whith the efectiveness of the exocet/super etendard combo but "very effective infantry"??? At this time argentine land forces were formed whith non voluntary conscript, at the very begining of they ineffective military training. Sum up the providencial inability of their officiality to do anything different to "only get a wage" and you get the whole picture.
>> 2. The UK won and had 1/3 the casualties of Argentina.
Mostly because a UK nuclear submarine sunk a argentinian ship (General Belgrano) out of the war theater.
That ship was moving out from islands, carrying a thousand conscripts. Deaths account for an half of the total loss of argentinean forces.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

Re:Waste of effort

[91degrees]

except for shoot at civilians in boats. Stage armed invasions. Use and take British military equipment without permission. Kidnap foreign nationals.

That all happened when Sealand was in international waters.

Data Piracy.

When? Unless someone actually makes a complaint, they're assumed innocent. The data haven did have a policy that they wouldn';t host data that violated UK copyright laws.

Tax evasion

I don't think anyone is using Sealand's alleged statehood for tax evasion Smuggling

Unless people are smuggling to Sealand and keeping stuff there, claiming jurisdiction over Sealand is pointless.

Residents of "Sealand" have broken lots of laws and show themselves to be quite indifferent to the laws of the land. The reason no-one deals with Sealand is because it would be a political hassel. They've broken plenty of laws.

Okay. Maybe I'm being too pedantic. They're not breaking enough laws publicly enough to cause enough of a problem. I'll bet quite a few people are doing those things fairly regularly. It's ignored because police resources are better spent elsewhere.

Re:Waste of effort

[CrimsonAvenger]

Mostly because a UK nuclear submarine sunk a argentinian ship (General Belgrano) out of the war theater.

When you're in a war, there are no "out of the war theaters".

That ship was moving out from islands, carrying a thousand conscripts. Deaths account for an half of the total loss of argentinean forces.

Which still leaves the Aregentians losing more than the Brits. Including losses on Sheffield, which also didn't have much to so with their respective infantry.

Re:Waste of effort

[haydensdaddy]

No one sees the SAS coming.

No, that's the Spanish Inquisition

Re:Waste of effort

[Teancum]

That said, the UK and all her allies have been having their asses repeatedly handed to them by a bunch of natives in Afghanistan for much of the last decade, which is significantly more recent than the Falklands War.

The reason why the UK "and her allies have been having their asses repeatedly handed to them by a bunch of natives in Afghanistan" is in part because they choose for international public relations purposes. Yes, it makes people angry to see imperialistic expansion, but had the British or Americans decided to conquer and even annex the Afghan people in even a manner like the native peoples of North America were subjugated, much less to deal with the country like the Romans dealt with their conquered provinces, Afghan rebels wouldn't even be a problem at all.

A good example of how the Afghan people could be treated can be found in this article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862

I'm not advocating such a policy, so don't mix my words up. Perhaps the current approach is better where on occasion the "natives of Aghanistan" might be able to get an occasional victory, and where the British and American forces in Afghanistan really don't care if they ultimately succeed in pacifying the country or not. But if the goal is to conquer and control a piece of territory, it can get quite rough for the "natives" that don't subject themselves to the new authority of that region.

I'll also add parenthetically that the Soviet Union (who didn't care about international public opinion or even what their own citizens thought of the war) was in reality defeated by America and not the Afghan people. Indeed I would argue that the same thing is sort of happening in Afghanistan today as well, where well established countries are financing and supporting the insurgency in Afghanistan and the supplies for the "rebel forces" in Afghanistan are coming from somewhere else. I'm not going to speculate where, just that it is.

Re:Waste of effort

[zipn00b]

Can I borrow a rowboat? I always wanted to take over a country.......

Re:Waste of effort

[sociocapitalist]

This is an interesting article on whether or not the UK could still defend the Falklands against Argentina (assuming we take the position that the Falklands belongs to the UK): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

Re:Waste of effort

[Em Adespoton]

Tax evasion

I don't think anyone is using Sealand's alleged statehood for tax evasion

No, but anyone who claims sovreignty there and doesn't pay UK taxes (property tax, income tax, etc) is evading UK taxes. The UK could have anyone who works there and then visits England arrested for tax evasion if they don't pay UK tax.

Re:Waste of effort

[tehcyder]

"Nobody believes the UK couldn't take Sealand if they want to. "

Last time they were seen in action was the Falkland Islands wher they had their asses handed to them by a bunch of natives. They are a shadow of what they once were.

I hope that was just a crap troll from a deluded South American, because otherwise your lack of contact with reality is really rather worrying.

Re:Waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

The General Belgrano was in a war zone, and anyway the Argies were fucking lucky we didn't drop an H-bomb on Buenos Aires and shift the proportion of casualties somewhat more dramatically in our favour.

Re:Waste of effort

[tehcyder]

except for shoot at civilians in boats. Stage armed invasions. Use and take British military equipment without permission. Kidnap foreign nationals.

That all happened when Sealand was in international waters.

What difference does that make? Do you think pirates don't have to obey the law just because they're in international waters? Hint: if you attacked a UK Royal Navy vessel in international waters, you would get your testicles handed to you in a bap, with ketchup..

Re:Waste of effort

[91degrees]

What difference does that make?

The law that can be applied outside British territorial waters is less substantial than the law that can be applied within British territorial waters.

Do you think pirates don't have to obey the law just because they're in international waters?

No, but then there is specific legislation covering piracy, that applies on the high seas. In fact, if you committed what would otherwise be an act of piracy within British territorial waters, it wouldn't be piracy according to the law, but simply an act of robbery.

Troll, n: TheRaven64

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Troll, n: TheRaven64

[Anonymous Coward]

You seriously need to get out more, try a hobby.

Sincerely
- AC

Re:Troll, n: TheRaven64

[Anonymous Coward]

You are gibbering. Please stop.

Re:Troll, n: TheRaven64

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I recommend risperidone.

Re:Troll, n: TheRaven64

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a few questions:

1. WTF?
2. Is it possible to make an ad hominem attack on an anonymous coward?
3. Will the accelerated demise of rational debate (replaced by argumentative zealotry) lead to to the inevitable subjugation of the Human race by Klackons, Psilons, Scientologists or all of the above?

Re:Troll, n: TheRaven64

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. To be honest, I don't think anyone could ever humiliate anyone more than what you just did to yourself.

Re:Troll, n: TheRaven64

[PopeRatzo]

I recommend risperidone.

It's best with a high-quality vodka, a splash of Lillet and a dash of bitters.

Over crushed ice.

And a loaded .45

Re:Troll, n: TheRaven64

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one sad little man.

Re:Troll, n: TheRaven64

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, off-topic much? Where's the -1 Childish mod?

The only reason you post AC is because it makes you that much harder to ignore, right? You sure do love your attention...

Re:Troll, n: TheRaven64

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Once APK can stabilize himself I'm pretty sure he'll be a reasonable member of society.

Why not a real country?

[fervus]

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.

Re:Why not a real country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks blew their load and now they've got nothing.

Re:Why not a real country?

[DrgnDancer]

It's like this. North Korea would be *thrilled*, just thrilled to host Wikileaks. As long as Assange can make reasonable (read "absolutely iron clad" ) guarantees that North Korea itself will never, ever, ever be portrayed as anything other than a country of perfection and bliss. The problem for Wikileaks is two fold:

1) They are equal opportunity whistle-blowers. They aren't going to compromise their principles by immunizing their host country from scrutiny.
2) Most countries that really want to embarrass the US have far worse secrets than the US does, and even less of a sense of humor about them being revealed.

The US may want to prosecute Assange and put him in jail for revealing classified documents (Which I happen to think they can't legally do, he neither stole those documents, nor had legal access to them via having signed a security agreement. He just published what someone else gave him), but North Korea would happily put him in a labor camp and work him to death for publishing anything that reflects vaguely poorly on them.

Re:Why not a real country?

[ArsenneLupin]

Wikileaks had dirt on every country where the US have/had an embassy... Which doesn't leave that many.

Re:Why not a real country?

[idontgno]

They aren't going to compromise their principles by immunizing their host country from scrutiny.

^This. The moment Wikileaks or anyone of the like starts tailoring their revelations to shield some and damage others, they become another propaganda organ and lose any credibility they might have.

So the idea of stateless hosting is probably quite appealing, even if it's a mere fantasy.

Re:Why not a real country?

[spire3661]

When you give a government a black eye, that is a crime in and of itself to those in charge. It is a foolish man who taunts a government like he did. When you piss off those in power to that degree, the law becomes quite irrelevant. Why couldnt he release anonymously? Why did he have to attach his name to it? O thats right because hes a self-aggrandizing asshole. They dont care if they break the law to get you, and will most likely get away with it.

Re:Why not a real country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless someone sets up a server on Marie Byrd Land or Bir Tawil, I think you're screwed. Every country on earth knows how horrendously corrupt and violent the USA is, so they don't want to get on their bad side.

So have fun getting a server to keep running on Marie Byrd Land (at least you won't need additional cooling for the servers... supplying them with power could be tricky) or Bir Tawil (I'm pretty sure you'd be wiped off the face of the earth by either Egypt or Sudan if you even tried thinking about setting up something in there).

Re:Why not a real country?

[BitZtream]

Thats because governments are generally a little smarter than your silly little high schooler on slashdot.

Wikileaks has a tendency to bite the hand that feeds them and has a complete and total disregard for the consequences of their actions, no one intelligent trusts them, you shouldn't either.

Even shitty little countries like you mention are smart enough to stay the fuck away from them.

Re:Why not a real country?

[BitZtream]

they become another propaganda organ and lose any credibility they might have.

Seriously? So you mean they've been one from the start?

When you can tell me all of Assange's private communications with his lawyers and such, then you can tell me how fair they are.

Funny how we can't see that, but we must be told that some Saudi prince drinks alcohol, or that everyone in the middle east secretly wants us to take out Iran although they don't say it publicly.

You're so busy raging against the machine to notice you're become part of it.

Re:Why not a real country?

[Anonymous Coward]

"They dont care if they break the law to get you, and will most likely get away with it."

    And in doing so prove you right. Kind of risky in a country that's affected by public opinion isn't it?

Re:Why not a real country?

[Em Adespoton]

Wikileaks had dirt on every country where the US have/had an embassy... Which doesn't leave that many.

...and the ones it leaves are generally ones where there was no embassy because of known human rights abuses (namely, places that wouldn't let WikiLeaks operate in the first place).

Re:Why not a real country?

[themusicgod1]

Except a censorship resistant leaking system that is guaranteed to find more data as time goes on.

They didn't get the operating manual to Guantanamo Bay leaked do them once, they had it leaked multiple times from multiple different versions of the document from multiple places within the bureaucracy.

If you have something you feel should be leaked to the world we now have a place that can vet and leak that document. This wasn't the case before wikileaks -- you had to hope that your local news agency wasn't in league with whoever you were leaking about, which wasn't always a good assumption. Plus, if you don't trust wikileaks, there's also openleaks and other competitors as well -- something which will not be the case if wikileaks ever closes shop (as those competitors will be corrupted, but right now have to at least try to compete with wikileaks)

Failed for practical reasons

[1s44c]

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.

Re:Failed for practical reasons

[ArsenneLupin]

Also anytime the UK government felt like shutting them down they could. The UN won't defend a country it doesn't recognize.

Even easier than that: they could just shut down the Wifi access point, which would be on UK territory... Same weakness than the raspberry pies in the sky, really...

Re:Failed for practical reasons

[dkleinsc]

The UN won't defend a country it doesn't recognize.

In other words, the UN won't defend anybody from the USA, Russia, China, the UK, or France, or an ally of one of those powers, unless there's some complex diplomatic maneuvering like what happened at the beginning of the Korean War.

Re:Failed for practical reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN won't defend a country it doesn't recognize.

Really, least of all Palestine...

Cables still have to come ashore

[Albanach]

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.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[1s44c]

They didn't even have cables or the satellite connection they claimed to have. It was long distance WIFI done on the cheap from the UK mainland.

Their setup was rubbish.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me wireless any day. As long as it's run from both sides by first class radio engineers rather than using off-the-shelf equipment on specific frequencies, of course.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[vlm]

I think you're missing the point that it takes two radios to work. They were, for all intents and purposes, merely a .uk POP, not independent in any way.

Now if they had also run a cable to france, a cable to spain, a cable to canada, now we're talking.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[TheRaven64]

The problem isn't technical, it's legal. Even if (and that's a big if) Sealand is an independent country, if all of their traffic goes via a single radio transceiver on the UK mainland that means that it's just as easy for the UK government to shut them down as if their servers were hosted in the UK.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, so you would hopefully have dozens of backup transceivers in various jurisdictions - no reason why you can't have multiple active at once, too. Cables can be cut. Finding and blocking and intelligent use of frequency hopping, e.g. spread spectrum signalling, is not so easy.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[Ihmhi]

Sealand could launch its own satellite and bypass all of that stuff.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[Oswald McWeany]

Nah... Sealand is smaller than the footprint required to launch a rocket. Also, at that latitude it would be more difficult than at the equator. They would need to aquire territory near the equator and with a military of two people- that might be tough.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[1s44c]

Sealands isn't near enough to any other country for a fast and practical wifi link. Satellite is too slow and expensive.

Yes they should have multiple uplinks but I doubt they ever did.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[CityZen]

You're taking him too literally. The idea is that Sealand would pay another entity, like say Sea Launch, to put the satellites up.
Of course, in this case it wouldn't happen due to the expense.

But it's still a novel idea. What if you put the servers on the satellite as well? Anyone with an appropriate dish could access it.
What country would be able to say "You can't put that data up there!" (This is assuming that one could overcome all the
issues surrounding satellite positioning and bandwidth allocation and footprints and such; space is kind of crowded already.)

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[Ihmhi]

You're taking him too literally. The idea is that Sealand would pay another entity, like say Sea Launch, to put the satellites up.

Correct.

Re:Cables still have to come ashore

[wreakyhavoc]

Neal Stephenson always bears referring:

Mother Earth Motherboard: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass_pr.html



Most of the fishing-related damage is caused by trawlers, which tow big sacklike nets behind them. Trawlers seem designed for the purpose of damaging submarine cables. Various types of hardware are attached to the nets. In some cases, these are otter boards, which act something like rudders to push the net's mouth open. When bottom fish such as halibut are the target, a massive bar is placed across the front of the net with heavy tickler chains dangling from it; these flail against the bottom, stirring up the fish so they will rise up into the maw of the net.

Mere impact can be enough to wreck a cable, if it puts a leak in the insulation. Frequently, though, a net or anchor will snag a cable. If the ship is small and the cable is big, the cable may survive the encounter. There is a type of cable, used up until the advent of optical fiber, called 21-quad, which consists of 21 four-bundle pairs of cable and a coaxial line. It is 15 centimeters in diameter, and a single meter of it weighs 46 kilograms. If a passing ship should happen to catch such a cable with its anchor, it will follow a very simple procedure: abandon it and go buy a new anchor.

But modern cables are much smaller and lighter - a mere 0.85 kg per meter for the unarmored, deep-sea portions of the FLAG cable - and the ships most apt to snag them, trawlers, are getting bigger and more powerful. Now that fishermen have massacred most of the fish in shallower water, they are moving out deeper. Formerly, cable was plowed into the bottom in water shallower than 1,000 meters, which kept it away from the trawlers. Because of recent changes in fishing practices, the figure has been boosted to 2,000 meters. But this means that the old cables are still vulnerable.

When a trawler snags a cable, it will pull it up off the seafloor. How far it gets pulled depends on the weight of the cable, the amount of slack, and the size and horsepower of the ship. Even if the cable is not pulled all the way to the surface, it may get kinked - its minimum bending radius may be violated. If the trawler does succeed in hauling the cable all the way up out of the water, the only way out of the situation, or at least the simplest, is to cut the cable. Dave Handley once did a study of a cable that had been suddenly and mysteriously severed. Hauling up the cut end, he discovered that someone had sliced through it with a cutting torch.

There is also the obvious threat of sabotage by a hostile government, but, surprisingly, this almost never happens. When cypherpunk Doug Barnes was researching his Caribbean project, he spent some time looking into this, because it was exactly the kind of threat he was worried about in the case of a data haven. Somewhat to his own surprise and relief, he concluded that it simply wasn't going to happen. "Cutting a submarine cable," Barnes says, "is like starting a nuclear war. It's easy to do, the results are devastating, and as soon as one country does it, all of the others will retaliate.



Copyright © 1993-2004 The Condé Nast Publications Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 1994-2003 Wired Digital, Inc. All rights reserved.

Foreign aid for a start

[Shivetya]

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.

See troll (TheRaven64) RUN everyone (lol)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

(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

Definitely not news anymore

[LittleImp]

This story shows up every couple of months...

Re:Definitely not news anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's a tidal thing.

Not a real country

[Anonymous Coward]

How can it be, when there are no horses?

UK - Horses.

US - Horses

Spain - Horses.

Sweden - Horses

France - Horses

Sealand - No horses!

WARNING - OBVIOUS RESPONSE FOLLOWS

[Anonymous Coward]

Sealand - seahorses.

Re:See troll (TheRaven64) RUN everyone (lol)... ap

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG.. you've discovered the hosts file. You're such a smart person. Thanks for spending on all this time informing us on /. about this incredible advance in computing.

You are absolutely correct.

[Medievalist]

Talking about nuclear power, Ayn Rand, or libertarianism on Slashdot is about as productive as trying to discuss Zionism on Wikipedia.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1998-06-14/

Sealand, the BitCoin of countries!

[sirwired]

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.

"Safe Havens" do not exist

[JockTroll]

There is no "Safe Haven". Nowhere. Unless it's backed by lots of money, armies of lawyers and enough firepower, nowhere can be counted as "safe" if they come for you. Don't even mention public opinion, it doesn't matter: those in power have learned it can be easily distracted and only has about a couple of days' worth of attention.

Spelling

[Alomex]

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.

Re:Spelling

[93 Escort Wagon]

The proper English spelling of naÃveté ...

Not sure what OS you typed that on, but on my Mac that doesn't look like the proper English spelling of anything.

Re:Spelling

[Alomex]

Windows. I thought by now an HTML form editor would be smart enough to convert on its own to HTML entities but I was wrong.

I tried previewing it, but got a 406 message and then the thing got posted automagically when I tried to preview it again.

Naïveté

I think you miss the point, though....

[King_TJ]

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.)

Re:I think you miss the point, though....

[BitZtream]

Not to mention you might not want to start with a former British military outpost which is located beyond any doubt what so ever inside the territorial waters of England and has ALWAYS been considered British soil. They could of moved London on board and it wouldn't have mattered, its part of England.

What these guys did was no different than a moon shiner in the Ozarks claiming he doesn't live in America and isn't bound by American laws.

He can say it, but you're an idiot if you believe him.

But back to what you said, if they ever had any value, they'd just be overrun by someone like Somali pirates. Not them specifically, but lets face it, there are plenty of people with nothing to live for that could take out that little base with bodies alone.

Re:I think you miss the point, though....

[TangoMargarine]

Not to mention you might not want to start with a former British military outpost which is located beyond any doubt what so ever inside the territorial waters of England and has ALWAYS been considered British soil.

Except for the part where it *wasn't* "beyond any doubt what so ever"...from Wikipedia:

The location chosen was approximately six miles from the coast of Suffolk, outside the then three-mile territorial water claim of the United Kingdom and therefore in international waters.

I'd say "in international waters" is at least enough doubt to discount "none whatsoever," regardless of their intent in putting the platform out there obviously for defensive purposes. Your analogy of someone in the Ozarks is hyperbolic.

Re:I think you miss the point, though....

[Lucractius]

Please RTFA.

Two court cases have affirmed the United Kingdom considers itself to have no jurisdiction over Sealand.
The reason for this is it was OUTSIDE territorial waters when he declared it independent. The territorial waters used to be 3 miles. They are now 12miles (and with a 200mile exclusive economic zone as well, the sovereign territorial jurisdiction of which has not yet been put to any test relevant to the case of any micro nation) and Sealand is now inside the 12 mile territorial waters zone of the United Kingdom and has yet to form any kind of treaty with the Crown regarding the formal boundaries of their respective waters.

you left out a noun

[tverbeek]

Libertarian, n:

A person who understands the difference between government oppression and free market oppression and prefers free market oppression.

Re:you left out a noun

[roman_mir]

Free market cannot in principle oppress you, there is no legal body that is above you in the eyes of the law to do so.

Re:you left out a noun

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, free market cannot oppress you in PRINCIPLE

In practice, free market not only allows for oppression, it allows for anything and everything, as long as the market can bear it

The market does not care for morals or ethics, or even law. If there's demand for it, and there's a supply for it, go nuts!

If there's say, a demand for people to lap up bullshit, and a supply of people to provide bullshit, free market will allow it with a smile!

In fact, that's exactly what happened: the people who provide bullshit are called politicians, and the people lap up the politicians' bullshit are called the masses who vote for them

Libertarians n:

People who mistakenly seem to think all the bullshit going on are not just another part of the free market, and blames it all on government

Re:you left out a noun

[Shotgun]

You obviously don't understand the parent's definition of "oppression". A lot of people have this weird notion that if someone doesn't provide for you in the manner that you would like to become accustomed, you are being "oppressed".

-No one will pay for my college expenses. I'm being oppressed.
-No one will pay for the surgery I want. I'm being oppressed.
-No one will feed my children. I'm being oppressed.

They cannot distinguish between being oppressed, and being left to your natural state.

Re:you left out a noun

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean by "natural state"?

If you mean one without man, then there's no competition for natural resources such as water, timber and earth.

If you mean one which has not progressed beyond non-human primate socialisation, then "natural state" involves rape, murder, torture, arbitrary appropriation according to physical might, etc.

No, I think this is what you are arguing:

1) Man's natural state is one which results from libertarianism.

2) The ideal state for man is man's natural state.

3) Therefore the ideal state is libertarian.

Unfortunately for you, the premises (1 and 2) were pulled out your ass. In this way, libertarianism shares a key feature of any One True Religion under which man should supposedly toil. Most religions are at least honest enough to stipulate that they require faith, though...

Re:you left out a noun

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people have this weird notion that if someone doesn't provide for you in the manner that you would like to become accustomed, you are being "oppressed".

A lot of people have this weird notion that if the government doesn't inspect plants, they end up with toxic melamine in their infant formula.

God knows where they might get that idea, after all businesses would never do anything at all to harm their customers, even if everyone involved takes a huge bonus and retires in the Cayman Islands by the time people figure out what's causing all their kids to die.

Too tiny

[Animats]

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.

re: discuss on Wikipedia

[dgharmon]

Is this the same Wikipedia that says Windows wasn't designed for the Internet? link

Re: discuss on Wikipedia

[Onymous Coward]

Does that seem contentious or inaccurate to you?

Windows 3.1 (1992) certainly didn't have the net in mind.

Re: discuss on Wikipedia

[styrotech]

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?

Tell that to Raven64 after his 'epic fail' here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:See troll (TheRaven64) RUN everyone (lol)... ap

[TangoMargarine]

So - now the shoe's on the other foot

The same shoe? Doesn't sound very comfortable...

Not one mention...

[XDirtypunkX]

And no one has mentioned Cryptonomicon yet, how disappointing.

Woe-to-hice

[wreakyhavoc]

2012 is the year of Finux on the the portable!

nobody noticed the typo in the headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

heaven, the word is heaven

Re:nobody noticed the typo in the headline?

[mrcoolbp]

No it *is* "haven" as in "safe haven" or HavenCo. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HavenCo

Follow it through to conclusion.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Windows NT not designed for the Internet

[dgharmon]

That whole section is a bunch of self serving advertising.

"Windows NT .. were not initially designed with Internet security in mind" link

Re:Windows NT not designed for the Internet

[styrotech]

That statement seems perfectly accurate to me. Internet security was an afterthought for NT.

Everything (documentation, exam content etc) about NT security in the 90s was purely about access control features for already authenticated LAN users. There was no focus on internet hardening at all. MS fought a long and bloody reactive battle against relatively easy and obvious TCP/IP stack exploits with NT4. That patching hell was what made me switch to Debian and OpenBSD where ever I could.

IMO Windows 2008 was the first server version that really took internet security seriously. 2003 kinda did, but not to the same extent.

Re:Windows NT not designed for the Internet

[dgharmon]

"In order to make the process easier, Microsoft included in Windows 95, and now has in Windows 98, an Internet referral Server", link

"Everything .. about NT security .. was purely about .. already authenticated LAN users", styrotech

Then please describe how people were supposed to run eCommerce platforms on NTs Internet Server?

Demonstrate NTServer as THE Internet platform
* NTServer as Internet platform whitepaper done
* Analyst/lab press tour by 3/30/95
* Internet World show: mid-April
* Momentum: demonstrate 10 of the top 12 Internet sites now running on NTServer platforms

* External Beta of Internet Server: 7/1/95
* RTM: before end of 1995

Re:Windows NT not designed for the Internet

[styrotech]

I can't really tell WTF your point is. Linking a reference to a Win 95/98 web server? Those systems definitely weren't designed for internet security.

Is this "Internet Server" mentioned in your management presentation link what would eventually be shipped as IIS 1.0 - an optional addon for NTs 3rd release (3.51) in 1995? And then only included in NT4 by 1996 (IIS 2.0)? The same IIS that was extremely insecure up until version 6 when they started properly designing it for internet security?

NT was being designed long before 1995, and already had two versions released by then. Work on NT started before before work on the web itself did - let alone any ecommerce.

Having a web server addon available for later NT versions does not mean the NT was designed with internet security in mind. Even Windows 95 had web, mail and proxy servers available and the first version of Win95 didn't even have a TCP/IP stack. Even MS provided a web server for Windows 95 (Personal Web Server). You even point that out with your first link. The presence of web servers for a platform has nothing to do with whether that platform was originally designed for internet security or not.

The security focus with NT in the 90s was all about centralising authentication, enforcing policies and controlling what your internal employees could see and do. All the NT4 exams I sat (shudder) had no questions at all about internet security - just endless domain topology questions and far too many questions about Netware migrations. Technet had next to no information about hardening NT for the internet either. It was an afterthought and left to 3rd party material (O'Reilly had a really good book on this) that would often come with warnings about the functionality and product support you'd break by hardening certain bits. Disabling risky functionality and tweaking/tuning security settings would often involve a lot of unsupported registry hacking.

You're going to have to do a lot better to dispute that.

Re: I can't really tell WTF your point is

[dgharmon]

"Work on NT started before before work on the web itself did"

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 .. provided TCP/IP functionality .. back in 1994-1995"

Re: I can't really tell WTF your point is

[styrotech]

"Work on NT started before before work on the web itself did"

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 ...

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?

Trumpet Winsock .. provided TCP/IP functionality .. back in 1994-1995

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.