Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Censorship Data Storage Government The Internet United Kingdom News

The Fall of Data Haven Sealand 210

Posted by Soulskill
from the countdown-to-when-we-repeat-this-with-cloudland dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Fall of Data Haven Sealand

Comments Filter:
  • ah, libertarians (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, 2012 @08:17AM (#39495063)

    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?

  • Waste of effort (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, 2012 @08:21AM (#39495085)

    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.

  • by LittleImp (1020687) on Wednesday March 28, 2012 @08:58AM (#39495349)
    This story shows up every couple of months...
  • by DrgnDancer (137700) on Wednesday March 28, 2012 @09:34AM (#39495693) Homepage

    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.

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...