Dreams of Offshore Servers Haunt The Ocean-Based Micronation of 'Sealand' (theatlantic.com) 43
Late Christmas Eve, 1966, a retired British army major named Paddy Roy Bates piloted a motorboat seven miles off the coast of England to an abandoned anti-aircraft platform "and declared it conquered," writes Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ian Urbina.
Bates used it as a pirate radio station, sometimes spending several months there while living on tins of corned beef, rice pudding, flour, and scotch. But then he declared it to be the world's tiniest maritime nation, writes Urbina, adding that in the half-century to come, "Sealand" was destined to become "a thumb in the eye of international law." Though no country formally recognizes Sealand, its sovereignty has been hard to deny. Half a dozen times, the British government and assorted other groups, backed by mercenaries, have tried and failed to take over the platform by force. In virtually every instance, the Bates family scared them off by firing rifles in their direction, tossing gasoline bombs, dropping cinder blocks onto their boats, or pushing their ladders into the sea. Britain once controlled a vast empire over which the sun never set, but it's been unable to control a rogue micronation barely bigger than the main ballroom in Buckingham Palace.... In recent years, its permanent citizenry has dwindled to one person: a full-time guard named Michael Barrington...
In the decades since its establishment, Sealand has been the site of coups and countercoups, hostage crises, a planned floating casino, a digital haven for organized crime, a prospective base for WikiLeaks, and myriad techno-fantasies, none brought successfully to fruition, many powered by libertarian dreams of an ocean-based nation beyond the reach of government regulation, and by the mythmaking creativity of its founding family. I had to go there.
The article also acknowledges the Seasteading Institute founded by Google software engineer Patri Friedman and backed by Peter Thiel -- as well as the idea of offshore-but-online services in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon and Google's real-world plans for offshore data centers cooling their servers with seawater.
Urbina also tells the story of HavenCo, a grand plan for a Sealand-based data empire which ultimately had trouble powering their servers, alienating their gambling-industry customers with frequent outages. And in addition, one of the Bates' family says that "we also didn't see eye to eye with the computer guys about what sort of clients we were willing to host" -- and they objected to plans to illegally rebroadcast DVDs.
"For all their daring, the Bates family was wary of antagonizing the British and upsetting their delicately balanced claim to sovereignty."
The article is adapted from Urbina's upcoming book The Outlaw Ocean: Journeys Across the Last Untamed Frontier (to be released Tuesday).
Bates used it as a pirate radio station, sometimes spending several months there while living on tins of corned beef, rice pudding, flour, and scotch. But then he declared it to be the world's tiniest maritime nation, writes Urbina, adding that in the half-century to come, "Sealand" was destined to become "a thumb in the eye of international law." Though no country formally recognizes Sealand, its sovereignty has been hard to deny. Half a dozen times, the British government and assorted other groups, backed by mercenaries, have tried and failed to take over the platform by force. In virtually every instance, the Bates family scared them off by firing rifles in their direction, tossing gasoline bombs, dropping cinder blocks onto their boats, or pushing their ladders into the sea. Britain once controlled a vast empire over which the sun never set, but it's been unable to control a rogue micronation barely bigger than the main ballroom in Buckingham Palace.... In recent years, its permanent citizenry has dwindled to one person: a full-time guard named Michael Barrington...
In the decades since its establishment, Sealand has been the site of coups and countercoups, hostage crises, a planned floating casino, a digital haven for organized crime, a prospective base for WikiLeaks, and myriad techno-fantasies, none brought successfully to fruition, many powered by libertarian dreams of an ocean-based nation beyond the reach of government regulation, and by the mythmaking creativity of its founding family. I had to go there.
The article also acknowledges the Seasteading Institute founded by Google software engineer Patri Friedman and backed by Peter Thiel -- as well as the idea of offshore-but-online services in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon and Google's real-world plans for offshore data centers cooling their servers with seawater.
Urbina also tells the story of HavenCo, a grand plan for a Sealand-based data empire which ultimately had trouble powering their servers, alienating their gambling-industry customers with frequent outages. And in addition, one of the Bates' family says that "we also didn't see eye to eye with the computer guys about what sort of clients we were willing to host" -- and they objected to plans to illegally rebroadcast DVDs.
"For all their daring, the Bates family was wary of antagonizing the British and upsetting their delicately balanced claim to sovereignty."
The article is adapted from Urbina's upcoming book The Outlaw Ocean: Journeys Across the Last Untamed Frontier (to be released Tuesday).
Keep your garbage out of the sea (Score:2)
Enough with polluting the land and wasting energy on meaningless digital pursuits (online gambling and crypto mining). Leave the ocean alone.
Re: Keep your garbage out of the sea (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that most of the people trying to use Sealand for free speech purposes were doing it for activities considered criminal in many places. It's a strange set of bedfellows when the person who wants free political speech is partnering with off shore gambling and the dark net.
Re: (Score:2)
The platform was already there, a leftover from WWII. Whether it's allowed to rust into the sea now, or 200 years from now, they didn't have to put in any extra resources to build the place. Otherwise why would they have bothered to "conquer" it?
You can disagree with the platform ever being built, but you're not going to get much traction in the middle of an existential threat like the Second World War. Once that's past, what's the harm in continuing to operate it in a manner that doesn't involve expanding
Crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry.. what's this bollocks about the UK government not being able to take it? They can take it any time they like. They've never seriously tried.
Try dropping a cinder block on an armed Royal Navy boat / officer and see what happens. They'd reduce it to a coral reef within seconds.
Nobody cares about Sealand. Nobody recognises Sealand. Nobody wants Sealand. It's a rust-heap in the ocean that was abandoned for a reason. They let the crazy old guy live there - without the protections of the nation state - because who cares? It's mercenaries who have tried to take it over a couple of times for their own ends, nobody serious. It's like having an old man on a desert island claim it as his own, and then having a couple of pirates visit.
The UK government not only doesn't recognise it, but its inside its territorial waters - they are subject to UK law at all times, but there ain't gonna be a lot they can do about some people in a dinghy coming and shooting the place up, inside any reasonable time frame. At the time it abandoned it, it was in international waters. It's a couple of poles in the water.
They're letting the crazy old man do what he likes, so long as he doesn't bother anyone. They could take the thing out from fucking London if they wanted to. Hell, HMS Belfast could pop over, take it out with WW2-era weaponry, and be back in its moorings in time for lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am getting to the point where I feel like government in all forms is bad.
Most fiction depicts seasteading as "rules need not apply". Like Ryan's Rapture, or Columbia. Doesn't mesh well with human nature no matter how many times we say "don't tell ME what to do".
Re: Crap. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Like the guy (some millionaire or other) who tried to make his own "sealand" in international waters just outside of China. There was an article a few months back about him. It didn't last long.
International waters = zero protection from pirates, no real rule of law, total anarchy.
Putting yourself in a fixed position out of protection of any country is a really bad idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Not just no protection from pirates, no protections from other countries. If you're declaring yourself a new country, it helps to have citizens, money, an army, exportable goods, etc. Things that other countries might value, and might engage with you about. If you've got nothing of interest and are an irritant, and have no form of defense, you're really SOL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is that in this century and beyond, the nations of Earth can reach absolutely anywhere they want. There is no anarchism on this planet. Assange and Snowden demonstrated that. If you want freedom,you will have to leave the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Flag: "Mars or Bust"
Re: (Score:2)
Anarchy really isn't freedom though, unless you're rich and powerful enough to afford mercenary protection.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK government not only doesn't recognise it, but its inside its territorial waters - they are subject to UK law at all times.
More than that the former HM Fort Roughs (Roughs Tower) is British government property as the current squatters have never undertaken any court action to acquire ownership from the British Government. They can be removed by the government at any time without recourse, if it the government felt it was worth the trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that was my very first thought. The UK gov just don't care enough to have anyone killed over it. The Falklands War is what happens when they actually get serious. I think that says something good about the UK, in fact, that they're just willing to let a crazy old dude and his progeny live in peace.
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is Sealand is a manmade structure out in the ocean. It's going to be reclaimed in a short while simply because it's rusting into dust.
Now, whether or not the main top structure rusts before the two supports do is a question in and of itself, but it's all deteriorating and simply not going to last that long.
So in a couple of decades or so, unless it gets some serious rehabilitation, it's going to simply collapse into the sea. Saltwater just isn't kind to manmade stuff.
It's not really worth it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the whole decryption so the computer can process it.
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be very pleasant there now (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You mean, without the benevolent, omniscient government guaranteeing healthcare and food? Without any protections for labor unions against exploitative employers? Without rules prescribing the safety barriers? The equality of sexes and races? Yes, I'm sure, it is a very sad place... And don't even get me started on the (nonexistent) protections of the wildlife!
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it sounds like the perfect place for you to move to, then. A real libertarian paradise.
I hear that their marine corps has openings for entry-level cinder block droppers.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure — it might, actually, be quite Authoritarian.
Their not having the regulations I described does not mean, they don't have others — less or more pleasant. You should've realized this, before attacking "Libertarians".
Re: (Score:2)
Was it really the (unprotected) wildlife? The trained seals and dolphins, perhaps?
And, for a good measure, you've decided to call us all pedophiles...
Why do I suspect, you own a Che Guevara T-shirt — maybe, even more than one?
Paradigm shift (Score:3)
And this is why, along with the failures of two "superpowers" to impose their will on the relatively small, technologically backward country of Afghanistan--territorial conquest is obsolete.
Now, armaments have more utilitarian importance in intimidating countries' own citizens than conquering external "enemies".
China is naturally using the old playbook against Hong Kong, but it is more and more difficult to achieve the standard goal of stealing the results of people's minds by controlling the ground their bodies are on.
Re:Paradigm shift (Score:5, Interesting)
Territorial conquest isn't obsolete; if anything it's technologically easier than ever before. It's just that after the experience of WWII, those of us with morals have become hypersensitive to detecting and stopping any psychopath before they amass that much power again. Do you think all the fuss over white supremacists is because their speech hurts your feelings? It's because that particular philosophy resulted in a war which killed 75 million people, and we don't want to go down that path again. Today, psychopaths usually only get as far as ruling a single country before they're taken down (or allowed to continue ruling that single country if it's not considered strategically important).
Do not mistake our success at keeping them contained as proof that treaties, negotiation, and appeasement work. If those of you who think another madman hasn't risen because it's somehow infeasible in this day and age succeed in getting the western democracies to disarm, we're gonna have to fight WWII all over again, only this time with nukes. Russia taking over the Crimea should've been a huge wake-up call that if you give Putin an inch, he will take the proverbial mile. Why do you think the Baltic countries were so eager to join NATO?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don’t know where you learned your history, but the Russians failed in Afghanistan, despite what amounted to unlimited brutality. Afghanistan is the graveyard of Empires.
Re: (Score:3)
What the Russians did in Afghanistan was nowhere even approaching unlimited brutality.
Every war since the second World War has been limited in scope. There hasn't been a single conflict since where the goal of the powers was to reduce the civilian infrastructure to ash, and that includes Afghanistan.
Either of the world superpowers has the total firepower to end the lives of every man woman and child in that country.
They didn't.
If they wanted to (Score:5, Insightful)
Britain once controlled a vast empire over which the sun never set, but it's been unable to control a rogue micronation barely bigger than the main ballroom in Buckingham Palace.
To paraphrase Tennyson, although Britain is no longer the power it once was, it is not "unable to control" Sealand. It chooses to not control it. If the Royal Navy wanted to, a single destroyer or fighter jet would be more than enough to remove Sealand from the map with zero danger to themselves. It tolerates Sealand because, politically, there is no upside to removing it and significant downsides to causing casualties over something so insignificant.
That Sealand exists is a testament to restraint, not impotence.
Re:If they wanted to (Score:5, Insightful)
I would actually say it's a testament to indifference. Restraint implies they actually give it any thought what so ever.
It's like claiming the US can't do anything about Slab City: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Oh good grief (Score:2)
Not this “Sealand” crap again...
Re: (Score:2)
Dicedot racing to the bottom. Sealand is not new and not news.
Where would their servers connect to? (Score:2, Interesting)
My knowledge of the internet with respect to international law is a little hazy so help me fill in some gaps.
Assuming Sealand has a server farm as its sole income source and its only connection to the internet is via a physical cable to England, how could they viably earn income? Wouldn't they be at the mercy of their nemesis, England, who they hope doesn't interfere with their connection? Basically, Sealand would be saying they're independent from England while relying on England to play nice to allow
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, Sealand would be saying they're independent from England while relying on England to play nice to allow them to earn a living. So much for being a "thumb in the eye" of your sugar daddy.
Bingo! That, my friend is the entire story of Sealand from beginning to its eventual end.
Long Time Sealander, First Time Caller: AMA (Score:3, Interesting)
(N.b.: I have visited Sealand on countless occasions, was involved in HavenCo, and know the Bates family.)
Urbina's Atlantic snippet is nothing more than a compilation and rehash of information long available in the public sphere. I hope his book has more original research than exhibited here: he's an excellent investigative journalist.
The secret to Sealand's longevity is a combination of the British sense of fair play and tolerance of eccentricity; combined with the Bates family's ability to stay on good political terms with the government of the day. Compare that to the massive overreaction of the Thai navy earlier in the year against a seastead off the coast of Phuket.
Libertarian Piggybacking (Score:3)
You ever notice how every Libertarian Dream(tm) starts off by taking over something that was already established by a more traditional government?
These guys never build their own thing. They instead want to declare something someone else already built, through collectivism, regulations, sacrifice and compromise, as an autonomous symbol of their inalienable individual freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
What nonsense, the Sealanders don't act like libertarians to anyone who has ever lived there. Quacks like a dog, swims like a dog, it ain't a duck.
Trying to claim Sealand's squatters prove anything about libertarianism is silly.
There are all shades of libertarianists, left and right winged, municipal and national.... Some want a lot of structure by government for specificc list of things, others want hardly any.... big big collection of pots, not one black one