Slashdot Mirror
The Fall of Data Haven Sealand
Fluffeh writes "Ars has a great article about the history of Sealand, a data haven — a place where you can host almost anything, as long as it follows the very bare laws of Sealand Government. Quoting: 'HavenCo's failure — and make no mistake about it, HavenCo did fail — shows how hard it is to get out from under government's thumb. HavenCo built it, but no one came. For a host of reasons, ranging from its physical vulnerability to the fact that The Man doesn't care where you store your data if he can get his hands on you, Sealand was never able to offer the kind of immunity from law that digital rebels sought. And, paradoxically, by seeking to avoid government, HavenCo made itself exquisitely vulnerable (PDF) to one government in particular: Sealand's.'"
The idea that you could escape from your own government's laws by keeping your data somewhere else is preposterous on its face. At some point, you have to get that data, and that data will have to cross into your own location, which would make you in possession of the data and liable for possessing it. Unlike Swiss bank accounts which hold money secretly for you, and are relatively safe from the prying eyes of the government, data is something that is not as easily picked up in person.
Tor onions. Are they good or are they whack?
The freedom-minded Hastings had moved to Anguilla to work on online gambling projects
What they really want is an abolition of all regulation so they can exploit your weaknesses and suck you dry.
I wonder whether Parker and Stone are finally realising this with their latest South Park episode on Cash for Gold services?
Sealand has no practical sovereignty. The most they can say is that so far the UK hasn't chosen to take over, and they're not aware of any plans to do so. Nobody believes the UK couldn't take Sealand if they want to. Nobody believes that it would be a diplomatic problem for the UK in their relations with other countries if they did. So Sealand, at best, can operate only if the UK lets it. That's not sovereign in any meaningful sense. Even if you feel that it would be wrong for the UK to interfere, that's hardly something you're going to rely on to stop them doing so.
Sealands failed because hosting anything there was crazy expensive and their only known data link was WIFI from the UK mainland.
Also anytime the UK government felt like shutting them down they could. The UN won't defend a country it doesn't recognize.
Isn't the big problem that Sealand's cables would still have to come ashore somewhere? Even if they used satellite the ground stations would still be in somebody's jurisdiction.
The only way I can see their concept working is on their local LAN. Once they hook up to the internet, they can simply be regulated through their upstream carriers.
This story shows up every couple of months...
How can it be, when there are no horses?
UK - Horses.
US - Horses
Spain - Horses.
Sweden - Horses
France - Horses
Sealand - No horses!
Sealand - seahorses.
It'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.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
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.