Has HavenCo's Data Haven Shut Down? 287
secmartin writes "HavenCo, the self-proclaimed data haven located on the micronation Sealand, appears to be offline. Their website is down, and there have been no announcements from either HavenCo or Sealand. HavenCo has been covered here before; it was mostly known for offering hosting of content that might be illegal in other countries. Does anyone have news about what happened to them?"
Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Interesting)
Hosting on Sealand was always under the juristiction of the United Kingdom. The territorial waters of the UK were increased to 12NM in 1987. You can't legally host content in Sealand that isn't legal in the UK. If they were suggesting otherwise then maybe Trading Standards have raided them?
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Informative)
But Sealand is 'grandfathered in'. There's a controversy surrounding it, but at the end of the day the 'sovereignty' of Sealand is not tested in court.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:4, Insightful)
Sovereignty is independent of any court. That's what sovereignty means: you are not beholden to or dependent on another power. As such, the test of sovereignty is quite simple: can you fight off any attempt to deny your sovereignty ? If yes, you're sovereign; if not, you're not.
Since Sealand quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Great Britain, they're not sovereign. They might gain some manoeuvring room by skilful use of legal tactics, but the very fact of needing the help of a British court and law to keep from getting crushed like an ant also means that they're beholden to it. You can't be dependent on and independent of the same thing at the same time.
Sealand gets shut down as soon as they annoy someone enough that they'll bother.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Interesting)
At the end of the day, a British court ruled that Sealand was outside of British jurisdiction, which atleast means they are not beholden to the British.
Germany also to one degree or another recognized Sealand by sending a diplomat there (rather than communicating with Britain).
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:4, Funny)
...This court ruling, an act of jurisdiction, establishes that we do not have jurisdiction over the territory for which we are passing jurisdiction. In other news, Rule #1 at sealand is: There are no rules! Rule #2 is "See rule #1", and oddly enough Rule #3 is "don't piss off the Germans"...
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Funny, but silly. The individual in question was a British citizen, and charges were levelled against him by British authorities. It was in this capacity that the ruling was made.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Insightful)
The "if you can't defend it then it's not yours" trend is a little worrying. There are plenty of countries that would find it rather hard to hold out were they to be invaded by the armies of a western nation, but they are no less sovereign states.
Simply having the power to take something does not grant you legal right to it (if it did then, for one thing, the copyright debate would be significantly easier to settle)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Funny)
that doesn't mean that Noglorpistan has magically become a country.
Unfortunately I believe you are correct. But for how much longer will we sit idly by while valiant Noglorpistanese freedom fighters wage war for their own sovereign lands! I say the time has come for western nations to longer turn a blind eye on the plight of the Noglorpistanese people.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, by that argument, most of the countries in the Middle East and Africa haven't got a snowflake's chance in hell of fighting off either the US, Russia or China. By that yard stick, they aren't sovereign either.
One of the reasons we aren't mired in huge amounts of empire building these days is because the major powers are largely bound by international law (which is still young and a little 'edgy'). Sealand makes interesting use of those laws in maintaining its independence (and hey, lots of places are now no longer truly independent, just look at the effects of this global credit crisis to see how far and how deep international trade runs).
Should the UK get sufficiently peeved, it will still need sufficient legal backing to annex Sealand (otherwise, it could quite happily decide that it'll expand its borders into, say, France).
There is already a lot of jostling and arguing over National boundaries, and has been for some time; it's just all handled in the courts (well, apart from the jostling in the fishermen's boats). Sealand is just using exactly the same laws.
I suspect the legal wrangling would be that Sealand was never truly a sovereign nation anyhow, making the whole of the later legal premises void. But that in itself would be an interesting courtroom wrangle.
You can of course say "What the hell" and just shut it down. But that would be against the law.. And the UK has big enough issues at the moment without getting hauled through the international courts.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2, Interesting)
The UK reciently used anti-terrrism laws against Iceland. Do you really think they couldn't do similar to sealand and force them to leave? The only reason sealand exists is that they've not annoyed the UK government sufficiently.
Sealand's a gimmick and I seriously doubt any international court would bother with them.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Informative)
Sealand has defended itself, by force, from invasion. It was taken over then liberated by the "prince", this is what prompted the visit from the German ambassador.
It is a sovereign nation, as defined by the UK's own laws; saying it isn't is sort of like Usenet doesn't enjoy common carrier protection.
In other words: a heck of a lot of people are saying it, and unless interested parties do something, what the people are saying will become reality regardless of precedent and law.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Insightful)
Very doubtful that any one would really care beyond the academia and geek circles. Most of the world regards sealand as just a bunch of crack pots on a abandoned oil derrick. Never mind it wasn't abandoned and its not a oil derrick. If some point couldn't be made about it, it would be on page 6 of the paper right next to an add for toilet paper.
Look at the incidences in the US in the past 20 years of ruby ridge and david koresh in texas. Yeah, I misspelled it and I don't care. There where some serous legal issues involved how that was handled but since the public at large though they where all loons nobody really cared. Sad, maybe, but that is how it is.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a facile analogy. If England were to expand its borders in to France, the entire continent would rally to the French side. If they were to annex Sealand tomorrow (or if they have today), no one would blink. To suggest otherwise is idiocy. The instant Sealand has something Britain wants, it will cease to exist. It's a bloody slab of concrete after all, the "native" population of which were British citizens before their "partiarch" went a bit batty.
Don't get me wrong, I wish I could make up my own laws, pronounce myself king, and run my own "country". But I recognize the instant I rocked the boat too much, that would be the end of it. And I have no problem with what Sealand is doing. But to suggest Britain can't put it out of business at any moment they want is madness. The deliver the mails there. They have the cables that connect to Sealand. Get your head out of the clouds.
Love,
Dirty Hippie.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Germany never recognized the GDR and once the borders fell punished citizens of East Germany for things that were legal in the GDR but illegal in Germany.
That's not really true. Voting fraud was illegal in the GDR too. Shooting at unarmed people was illegal too.
What other crimes do you have in mind?
Replace to words and things become interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting definition - especially if your replace to words in your sentence: Georgia quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Russia, they're not sovereign.
I know, this is off topic - but I could not resist.
And thinking about it: If your replace UK/Russia with USA then ~95% of all countries become "not sovereign". That's the ~95% which are not mayor nuclear powers.
So by your rationale: sovereign = mayor nuclear power and signing the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" is signing your sovereign away.
Martin
Re:Replace to words and things become interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, they're handing out nukes to municipal governments now? I don't know what it's like in your town, but the vast majorities of the mayors around here are factory-sealed with 98.5% pure batshit-grade insanity. I barely trust my mayor to run a furniture store, let alone an apocalypse.
Re:Replace to words and things become interesting (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Replace to words and things become interesting (Score:2)
Re:Replace to words and things become interesting (Score:5, Funny)
If your replace UK/Russia with USA then ~95% of all countries become "not sovereign".
I think the list is currently broken down something like this:
Nuclear capability ~ sovereign
No Oil ~ sovereign
Pissed us off in the past ~ NOT sovereign
Can't prove that there are no terrorists around ~ Really Really Not Sovereign
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Interesting)
"Since Sealand quite obviously has no chance in Hell in fighting off Great Britain, they're not sovereign."
I guess then a whole lot of countries are not "sovereign" because there is no chance in Hell they could fight off the United States, Great Britain, or Russia if either of those countries decided to go all out on them.
Show of force is not the only, nor even the best, way to prove your sovereignty. It just happens to be the "easiest".
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Funny)
And of course Monaco, Lichtenstein, Andorra, Malta, and the Isle of Man are but figments since they're not sovereign, either.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Funny)
> Wonderful! Then there isn't a single sovereign nation outside of the US - not a single nation could
> actually stand up to the force the US can project...
What about Iraq?
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Unless you count the presence of terrorist activities to indicate a failed projection of sovereignty? In that case, go talk to Spain who's had problems with the Basques for hundreds of years. Or Great Britain with the IRA. Or France with any of the Corsican resistance terror cells... And on and on.
Bottom line: if sovereignty is simply the ability to successfully resist military attacks by another, then NO COUNTRY is sovereign outside the US.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems the previous government of Iraq - that under Saddam Hussein - lasted all of 6 weeks before it was completely obliterated and their military destroyed. And then a new government was set up with US involvement.
Also, the US was trying to do what was necessary to topple the existing government and military in Iraq with minimal damages to the general population and non-military targets.
If the US had basically just wanted a very large hole where Iraq used to be, that would also have been quite easy to do. There is no country other than possible Russia that could stand up to this, as no other country can project so much of their military power to any location in the world like the US. China, for example, would be almost impossible to invade and conquer, but they can't really use their army for anything but defense against the US (unless they can swim better than we have seen).
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:4, Insightful)
5 official nuclar powers (Score:2)
I would rather say that by this rationale the the 5 recognized nuclear powers are sovereign and the Rest isn't. Because only those 5 recognized nuclear powers have enough nuclear weapons to blast each other from the surface of the planet.
Of course the rest of the planet would be destroyed as well. But hey, attack successfully repelled.
For who is who read the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty [wikipedia.org].
Re:5 official nuclar powers (Score:3, Interesting)
Your number is wrong on one count, and possibly another:
Britain does not have independent nuclear weapons [newstatesman.com].
States outside those five have large arsenals. India [nuclearweaponarchive.org] for example.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Vietnam then?
But I agree they probably wouldn't be able to repeat that feat today.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Informative)
The Isle of Man is NOT sovereign (I live there). We may issue our own passports; I travel with an Isle of Man passport - but the island is still a British crown territory even though it is not in or part of the UK.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Insightful)
Strictly speaking the Vatican has no chance in hell of fighting off Great Britian or, say, the Italian Republic. This does not mean however that the Vatican is not a sovereign country.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty certain the Vatican could take out the Italian government.
Armed Forces: The Swiss Guard. 1 reinforced company of Swiss Heavy Infantry. One could assume they could expand this force relatively quickly under emergency conditions, and the swiss military man-for-man scores extremely high on QJM. Hitler was polite to the Swiss, and it wasn't just because they laundered money for him.
There are also several Military Orders of the church; Knights of Malta, Sepulcher, Saint George. Purely ceremonial, but there is a framework there.
Lets say that...ok, going to have to reach, but: we continue our current slide into world anarchy; The Major Nations go Bankrupt, meaning the U.S, Russia, Germany, U.K., france, italy.
If things go depression era nuts in Italy, I could see, easily, a socialist strongman taking power.
If a socialist strongman took power in Italy, and NATO was bankrupt, and the EU equally so, I could see an Italian Socialist Strongman using the old "rich, depraved, capitalists have taken over the church" routine.
The Vatican would pretty much have to do something. the Swiss would be relatively unaffected by any turmoil the rest of the world would have; not only do they have assets, but thanks to their every-citizen-has-a-battle-rifle-in-his-closet policy, they are essentially immune from everything but intense air attack. They would almost certainly send a Battalion to the Vatican's aide.
The Church has resources, and would continue to have them after most everything else went to shit. Using the Military Orders as a framework, they could start recruiting good (and not so good) catholics from places they are STRONG, like central & south America. and they could afford to feed them, something The Italian Socialist Strongman would have problems with; The Pope could buy wheat from Kansas, Mussolini, jr. would have problems doing so.
Mussolini, jr. is probably going to have a inflated beyond reality idea of how strong the forces he controls are (it's a tradition); He would probably try to take control of the Vatican. The Swiss Guards Battalion would whip them like little puppies, and then the Knight commander of Malta would order their mainly South American forces to take control of the disorganized territories, to "lend aide and succor to those left without hope from the current crisis".
Viola! the Papal states return!
A closing note: I think I'm in a weird mood today. I'm not sure what makes me think that, but something is telling me....
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to buy your novel.
Micronations vs Italy (Score:3, Informative)
However, there are real reasons why it would be difficult to invade the Vatican. One, the majority of the Italian population is Catholic, and would oppose such a move. This makes it a non-starter under the current democratic government, naturally, but it would be a significant problem even for a dictator. In fact, the treaty that established the Vatican City was signed by Mussolini, who was eager to appease Catholic sentiment.
Two, the Holy See has diplomatic relations with 177 states, and there are over one billion Catholics in the world. International opposition to an invasion would result in strong sanctions against the invading country, at the very least.
None of these reasons apply to Sealand, of course. In fact, there is a much closer precedent involving Italy and an island micro-nation. In the 60s, Italian engineer Giorgio Rosa built a platform in the Adriatic Sea, right outside of Italian territorial waters, and declared it independent under the Esperanto name of "Respubliko de la Insulo de la Rozoj" (Republic of the Island of Roses [wikipedia.org]). Italy reacted quickly: the Coast Guard established a naval blockade of the platform, the Police occupied it, and eventually, the Navy demolished it using explosives. There were hardly any international protests, and the incident was soon forgotten.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Well technically they have the Pontifical Swiss Guard that protects them, and it is presumed that God is on their side...
As for the Swiss, we've seen how advance their pocket knives are, and we don't want to know what other advance weaponry that may have !
But seriously, Sovereignty is established by international treaty and are usually enforced by allied nations (or nations designated within the treaty).
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
They might gain some manoeuvring room by skilful use of legal tactics,
They actually did this once, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Sealand [wikipedia.org] Turns out Britain doesn't care. And why should they?
We were planning on taking Sealand over at some point. Inflatable boat, cooler full of beer and lots of yelling. But it turns out they probably actually have some guns. Sigh.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Some of those pirates from Somalia could come and take it over, it would probably be a lot easier to attack than a big oil tanker.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
And during the 1990s, Sealand fired upon a GB naval ship. I don't see GB having successfully invaded either. Just because a nation can be invaded by another, does not mean that nation isn't sovereign.
Following your statement: As such, the test of sovereignty is quite simple: can you fight off any attempt to deny your sovereignty ? If yes, you're sovereign; if not, you're not., there are two or three nations, tops, in the world. US, Russia and maybe China.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Typical American attitude. Guns, guns, guns. Might makes right. I've got news for you. Most countries cannot fight off an attempt to deny their sovereignty: Chad, Bangladesh, Peru, Belize, New Zealand, Canada, Laos, Poland, Luxembourg, Cuba, Japan, Jamaica, Mexico, Argentina, Liberia, Denmark, Qatar, and many, many more. In fact, only a very small number of countries could pass your test.
Sovereignty comes from diplomacy, international recognition, and compliance of the people being governed, not from strength of arms. Did the Netherlands cease being a sovereign nation when Germany annexed it during WWII? Did Kuwait cease to be a sovereign nation when Iraq annexed them in 1990? Did Iraq itself cease to be a sovereign nation when the US destroyed and replaced their government?
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm Finnish. My "attitude" is based on dictionary definition of sovereignty, as well as the history of my homeland - it's located right next to Russia, and until the dissolution of Soviet Union was pretty much forced to seek Moscow's approval for political decisions, least it be invaded. That means it wasn't fully sovereign.
Yes. And bombs, cannons and nukes.
No, it makes you sovereign. Right has nothing to do with it.
That is true. And historically, the rest of the world has revolved around them. Take the whole Cold War as an example: Warsaw Pact was Russia's sphere of influence, Nato was US's, and the rest of the world was fought over more or less covertly.
Diplomacy, international recognition, and the compliance of the people being governed all translate into strength of arms.
Yes. Or do you claim that they were independent of Berlin during that period ?
Yes.
Yes.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Interesting)
As I understand it, Sealand has no land territory and therefore won't be recognised as a country by anyone.
Legally speaking, it's probably a shipwreck - the platform's attached to a barge which was scuttled in place during the Second World War. Shipwrecks can't have their own government or territorial waters.
Their claim to independence is irrelevant.They haven't been closed down simply because they haven't done anything to provoke such drastic action.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
No, it isn't. Those places are soggy, but they're land, and states are defined as being particular patches of land.
If there's no land, there's no state.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Err . . . no.
Roughs Tower's a metal structure sitting on a sandbank, rather than a mass of rock, sand or earth. It's not land by any reasonable definition. Marsh and swamp have always been considered land rather than sea. Much of the land near Roughs Tower is very marshy, but it's never been considered a sea area - no state or law that I'm aware of considers their land extent to exclude marshes.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Informative)
As far as defining maritime jurisdiction goes, that may very well be the case. Consult a lawyer. There are rules on what can be counted in such cases.
As an example, though this page [uniset.ca], which is apparently a summary of a Sealand citizenship case in West Germany, states that in international law a state must have (among other things) territory consisting of a natural part of the Earth's surface, which on the face of it would rule out any body consisting entirely of reclaimed land or artificial platforms. If this is a far summary of the law, then Sealand simply have no tenable case for statehood.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Informative)
Err...that's not exactly right. New Orleans is NOT man made. It has existed long before the US was a country, and I kinda doubt they could man make a city out of nothing back then.
Actually, when I got back from Katrina...they had an interesting set of maps in the newspaper. They showed the areas of New Orleans that did not flood (the whole city didn't go under, some areas were bone dry)....and then they showed the original maps of NOLA as settled/explored/used...and amazingly enough..those non-flooded sections coincided with the old maps of NOLA.
Now...in addition to those areas of what I call 'natural' New Orleans...many areas, like New Orleans East, and some of the suburbs were often swamp lands or areas prone to flooding...and those had been pumped out, and 'processed' if you will to make for areas to build. Many of those were wiped out by the levee break related flooding.
But, just wanting to clear up the misconception...NOLA is not man made. Some areas around it are...and some areas of NOLA are naturally here, but, below sea level, but, that isn't man made, nor unusual...they are just prone to flooding and always have been. The man made levee system just protects them...and THAT is what failed.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
It didn't count as a country then either, so it had no rights that could be "grandfathered in" and no jurisdiction that could clash with that of the British government.
Anyone can declare themselves independent, but to be recognised as such you need to have some territory that's separate from other countries, and that fort has never been recognised as such territory by anyone else.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Interesting)
This could go on all day - I'll get popcorn.
From the Sealand Web site...
"On 1 October, 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles. The previous day, Prince Roy declared the extension of Sealandâ(TM)s territorial waters to be a like 12 nautical miles, so that right of way from the open sea to the Principality would not be blocked by British claimed waters. No treaty has been signed between the U. K. and Sealand to divide up the overlapping areas, but a general policy of dividing the area between the two countries down the middle can be assumed. International law does not allow the claim of new land during the extension of sea rights, so the Principalityâ(TM)s sovereignty was safely âoegrandfatheredâ in. Britain has no more right to Sealandâ(TM)s territory than Sealand has to the territory of the British coastline that falls within its claimed 12 mile arc."
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think a government can overtake another government's land simply by claiming an extension of water rights.
The government of New Jersey tried that tactic a few years ago in order to justify the building of an oil platform on the Delaware River. The NJ government claimed they own half the river and can do whatever they wish. The government of Delaware objected, and after digging through old documents dating to the 1600s, it was determined that Delaware controls the river adjacent to its capitol. The intervening birth of the United States had not changed or altered that prior claim. Therefore New Jersey's government was blocked by the Delaware government.*
If the territory of Sealand has prior claim to its land and local coastal waters, the UK cannot simply "take over" the place by whim, and I'm sure the EU version of the Supreme Court would hold this to be true. Sealand remains an independent government by previous land/water claims.
*
* The heart of the argument is that NJ wants oil and Delaware wants to protect "their" river from environmental destruction. Two governments with two goals are moving in seemingly opposite directions. The irony is that both governments are run by the same party (Democrats), and yet they still can't get along with one another.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a little different than that. Delaware's deed claimed all lands within a 12-mile radius from the Courthouse at New Castle, hence the round northern border of the state. The extension of the border to the NJ coast only applies to the area within the 12-mile circle.
From Delaware's website: http://www.dgs.udel.edu/publications/infoseries/info6.aspx [udel.edu]
NJ and DE both have interests in the Oil/Gas industry, in the form of tax revenue. Both are home to several refineries. Hence the need for competition.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is that both governments are run by the same party (Democrats), and yet they still can't get along with one another.
That's not too surprising. Both major parties in the US are marriages of convenience between groups with wildly different views. The same can be said of the major parties in the UK, and probably in any effectively two-party or three-party state. In fact, given the frequency of party splits in countries with proportional representation it may well be true of any political party in the world with more than 100 members.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Funny)
sooooo... that'd be fishing for fun and not for food, then? Or am I speaking to Mercury McSevenToe?
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
There have been similar disputes between Maryland and Virginia over the Potomac River.
Va. wanted to extend intake pipes for drinking water far enough into the Potomac that it reached into Md's waters.
I'm not quite sure who wants drinking water from that river anyway.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:5, Interesting)
By the letter of the law, Sealand has it right, I think.
However, what this fails to consider is that the force of law is rooted in exactly that -- force. Given the UK's possession of military and police forces which Sealand lacks there's not much question about what would happen if the UK decided to push its claim.
Sealand could try to appeal to the World Court, but since none of the UN membership recognizes Sealand as a sovereign nation, the court would ignore it, and there the issue would end.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:4, Informative)
Last time th British tried to take Sealand by force, they lost. The ruler of Sealand saw them off with a shotgun.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2, Informative)
Sealand's war record is 2-0. The incident you cited, and also some Germans (not the German gov't) tried to take Sealand over, and failed. I believe there was a kidnapping involved in the latter.
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:2)
However, what this fails to consider is that the force of law is rooted in exactly that -- force. Given the UK's possession of military and police forces which Sealand lacks there's n
ot much question about what would happen if the UK decided to push its claim.
Not really, but it'd be a rather poor standard as many countries couldn't defend themselves alone against the neighbours. But even the most pitiful and undefended tiny island nations usually get broad international recognition of their territory, Seeland has none, not even "moral support".
Re:Sea Boundaries (Score:3, Informative)
That's because it's "owned" by some nutbags who think that using loopholes in UK law gives them credibility. If the UK wants sealand they'll take it. If sealand ever got recognition as a sovereign country then I'm sure that the UK could make life impossible for them through legal channels.
Sealand continues to exist because they're not hurting anyone and there's no advantage to kicking them off their little platform. Killing the inhabitants via an armed takeover would be easy but silly.
Lack of funding, maybe? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lack of funding, maybe? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lack of funding, maybe? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lack of funding, maybe? (Score:2)
Re:Lack of funding, maybe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do all these slashdot hyped hacker projects have to be so half assed.
Obviously, if these projects weren't at least a little bit insane, they'd attract real investment that would hire professional and competent staff.
I think we all have a soft spot for cranks, especially cranks that are almost believable when viewed from a certain angle (and not to closely). They perform an important service to society, even if their ideas nearly always fail.
I think of the culture of ideas as being like an elastic band. One end is anchored in the great mass of the mundane, unimaginative, mediocre minds who perform all the useful but completely unoriginal work. On the other end of elastic are the people who in exchange for appearing occasionally incapable of tying their own shoes, sometimes come close to inventing an ingenious shoe tying machine. Most of their minds are are mediocre too, but they're not unimaginative, they are too imaginative. They aren't unoriginal, they nurse an irrational disdain for proven solutions.
If I had a choice of ends, I'd stand with the crackpots who keep the elastic band of creativity stretched taut across the entire range of possibility, rather than the mass of dead weight on the other end. I'd stand with the crackpots even though the cost is nearly certain failure and humiliation. There are a million Charlie Browns for every Joe DiMaggio. There has to be. If there weren't, then there wouldn't be any Joe DiMaggio either.
Re:Lack of funding, maybe? Lack of water, never (Score:2)
no potable water
It's the North Sea, off England and Scotland. Want potable water, instantly, any time of the year? Open your mouth and tilt your head skywards. Problem solved.
The North Sea has severe rainstorms than anywhere else on Earth. It rains and howls a gale almost constantly.
Far more likely, is the problem of too much fresh rainwater causing the roof, of whatever you're trying to shelter under, to collapse. A good drainage system and rainwater butt is more likely to be an engineering necessity than an environmental nice-to-have in any North Sea dwelling. You'll notice from historical pictures of Sealand/Havenco that their single-storey shack has steel girders for roof joists. Nobody hauls steel girders twelve miles offshore purely for decoration, matey.
Obligatory.. (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdotted.
Perhaps this (Score:2)
Well, some really rich person (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, some really rich person (Score:2)
Fortunately child nudity is still legal. Parents won't get arrested for taking photos of their children skinny dipping.
At least in Amerika. I don't know about Deutschland, Australia, or other zones that seem to be cracking-down on freedom of photographic expression.
Re:Well, some really rich person (Score:2)
>>>On the cracking-down bit: Germany recently made it illegal to sell or otherwise distribute pornography showing a person who looks younger than 18, even if everybody's of legal age.
>>>
The U.S. Congress passed a similar law. The U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional because there's no crime committed if the naked person is an adult, or if the porn is merely a drawing or computer-generated. No child has been harmed. Perhaps the E.U. Court of First Instance will do the same?
International (bad) relations mean not required (Score:2)
No need IMHO - you'll always be able to find someone to host what you want by simply choosing your hosting country.
Re:Well, some really rich person (Score:2)
Still countries, in general, make the silliest things illegal. Child porn is one thing, and that is reprehensible, but simply criticizing the state?
Isn't anything that looks vaguely like CP illegal? Even if it's entirely computer generated ("No children were harmed in the making of this film.")? Seems kinda silly to me to "protect children" by banning certain uses of graphics software (especially if the GC videos are substitute goods for things that do involve harm to real children, which seems reasonably likely)...
Re:Well, some really rich person (Score:2)
"Child porn is one thing, and that is reprehensible"
It is disturbing that someone can make such a bold statement about something which they have never seen. How can anyone form a conclusive opinion about child pornography when their only source of information is the mainstream media and government-sponsored advocacy organisations such as the NCMEC?
I and three other people have compiled a list of quotes about the nature of child pornography, here [newgon.com].
Well, (Score:4, Funny)
...according to that Netcraft screen dump in the link they have changed from Linux (I also presume apache) to MS IIS server... no wonder they appear to have sunk.
Deal between HavenCo and Sealand (Score:5, Insightful)
HavenCo has to pay Sealand considerable amount to keep the business running there. Therefore, the recently financial crisis would hit HavenCo badly.
So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK... (Score:5, Interesting)
Aaah. "Thames Coastguard, Harwich RNLI lifeboat, Felixstowe Coastguard rescue teams, firefighting tug Brightwell, the RAF rescue helicopter from Wattisham and 15 Suffolk based firefighters from the National Maritime Incident Response Group (MIRG) were all called into action to tackle the blaze"
Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK... (Score:2)
Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope sealand was billed for the rescue costs and medical fees.
Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So, if Sealand isn't part of the UK... (Score:2)
"So, rendering humanitarian aid gives you jurisdiction over an area?"
actually, yes it does. you are assuming that under normal circumstances, the aid given would have been provided via some other means, that some other capacity existed to render that aid
so the uk renders assistance to a peruvian freighter in the english channel, or to a french island in the english channel when french aid is otherwise occupied or too far away, then the uk does not get to own that freighter or that island
but you are talking about an entity which was actually constructed by the british, and abandoned. as such, it does get automatic respect of statehood, just because there are some squatters on it who claim it so
It's not exactly a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's not exactly a surprise (Score:3, Funny)
"You couldn't host anything really inflamatory"
Maybe someone did - and that's the real cause of the fire!!
Re:It's not exactly a surprise (Score:2)
They never did get more than rudimentary services going from the island, and they had several sets of falling out between the participants, which doomed it. I knew several of the Americans involved, and it was probably a failure before Ryan left, but certainly after; it wasn't a kind of business that the Royal Family really knew how to run.
The point of the place was largely that you could host material that was normally illegal or (more to the point for businesses) would have been taxable if it had been run from the UK. So gambling websites were a major target market, and tax avoidance / evasion in general, and of course music/movie/software piracy. It could have been tolerated, like the pirate radio that Sealand had run in the (?)80s, and they were working on getting a second set network feed from the Netherlands to provide regulatory diversity in addition to physical diversity.
I was a HavenCo customer (Score:4, Interesting)
I did work for a firm in 2001-2 that used HavenCo. I recall only one significant outage, which, given the advantage, was worth it for my client. Nor did we have problems with bandwidth. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear of the fire, and hope they'll recover, although I suppose it doesn't look good.
well duh (Score:2)
hosting on a rusty old gun turret in the middle of the english channel isn't exactly a formula for dependability
just find a micronation hostile to the online laws of other nations, like antigua, and host there
Sealand vs. More Conventional Islands (Score:4, Informative)
The Havenco folks were well connected with the Cypherpunks group that hung out in Anguilla back during the 90s boom. It was outside the US, so legal to develop cryptography there when it wasn't quite legal here, and it was a tropical island with good beaches and a friendly English-speaking population. Some of the group are still there, and have been running the .ai country-code TLD from the island for some time (for a few years, the ccTLD's DNS server was located in a bedroom in Berkeley :-)
Re:well duh (Score:2)
The English Channel would be comparatively welcoming compared to the North Sea, which is where they're actually located.
The English Channel runs along the south of England, north of France, and is home to the world's busiest shipping lane. Whereas the North Sea runs between England/Scotland and Scandinavia, and is possibly the most inhospitable non-frozen non-desert area on Earth.
On the plus side, access to drinking water is easy. Open your mouth and tilt your head skywards, you should get a mouthful of fresh rainwater in seconds, pretty much any time of the year.
Simplest answer (Score:2)
I heard that it was Somalian pirates... or post-banking-collapse Icelandic Vikings. Have you ever heard of Mad Olav!
Here be pirates (Score:2)
"havenco" has been hosted in London since 2003 (Score:4, Interesting)
HavenCo moved all customer servers to London sometime after I left, in 2003. Supporting evidence for this, besides traceroutes, is that the big fire, which destroyed generators and other equipment on sealand, did not affect the servers at all. Either you believe they had enough UPS capacity to ride out a multi-month power outage, or ...
(the 1ms pingtimes from routers in London is also a good sign...)
Re:Maybe it was pirates! (Score:2)
Sealand has held off armed raiders before, even before Havenco set-up shop there.
Re:Maybe it was pirates! (Score:2)
Re:Tourism (Score:2)
Unless it is drug/sex tourism, then you would just ensure that nobody would really care when the UK took it back and sank it.
Save some time (Score:5, Informative)
I've just spent a good half hour going through these posts, and nobody knows why HavenCo is absent. Save your time and move onto the next story...