Robert,
> The reason why they should have them is to make clear that they can NOT > decide ad hoc to raise taxes (in the sense of implementing tax rules and > starting to charge). There are no taxes to raise and i highly doubt there ever can be. You cannot live in Sealand, so how could they tax you? >Also, having a commercial code, contract law and > rules of conduct does not necesarily imply that there has to be a > judiciary aside from the absolute monarch or his appointees. Meaning, > HavenCo and Sealnd are two different entities. True, but the entities are somewhat mixed together like a dual reality. >One is a > company/venture/business/service provider, the other is a country. If the > country has no rules, then the service business can do as it pleases > (poach customers, spam visitors, etc) and while you can vote with your > wallet, it would put your clients at a disadvantage if after a few months > you moved off Sealand again. No. Our job is to provide a service for clients that enables anonymity online. this can be accomplished in many ways and locations. Since we feel that owning a NOC is a money losing proposition and ties one down by location and investment we remain nimble and can be anywhere at anytime which we see as a benefit to clients. > Having rules will protect your clients against HavenCo's actions if those > actions breach the rules. We have our own policies which supercedes those of Havenco and are far more extensive as relates to our clients. Havenco's policies relate to us and sealand's policies relate to havenco. What havenco does is not a problem for our clients as long as they do not steal data from the servers which i believe that they do not do this. You have to understand here that we are not hosting clients from Sealand yet. We sell web based email accounts that reside on a havenco server through a partnership with another provider that has built us a customized interface, or backend to their system. > You could then complan to the monarch who could either make a ruling or > appoint someone to do. An actual trial if you want to go that far, could > take place online. Yes, but this would never be an issue as we would only need to go as far as our provider. > > Now, I'm not saying that HavenCo is crook nor that Sealand is in any way > questionable. What I am saying is that there is no foundation to conduct > business on and HavenCo's terms of service (as well as your own) are hence > useless as they lack a basis in law, because there is no law. This is not true. Our policies have a basis in law. It is not relevant to say that becasue sealand has laws or does not have laws that this in any way affects us. > That, in turn means, everyone using any service related to Sealand has a > gentleman's agreement at best. Common law does not apply, because there > are no precedents. so? If we take you to court in the US and we win $5000 and you do not pay it what we have here is a lot of BS leading back to a gentalman's agreement gone sour. > > > > <<<- Sealand's ruler is an absolute monarch without checks and balances. > > So? > The word here is continuity. I accept that both the monarch and heir > apparent/prince regent appear to be honouarble people of good character, > but what about the next in line? Indeed, who IS the next in line? What if > heaven forbid something happens to the Bates' family and suddenly Sealand > is without a ruler. There are no rules that would take care of things. > Indeed, HavenCo's share holders could proclaim soverignity over Sealand in > the absence of anyone contesting. This is an issue that can be found in almost every country in the world at some point in time. An act of war, or an attempt to assume the throne forcibly always changes things. As a rule of thumb is to always good be a part of the side who comes out ahead if you have interests to be maintained. The oil companies are so good at this. Not always easy. If you have servers in Iraq or Afghanistan then you could say the same thing. But you are speaking in terms of fear and worse yet, projected fear of some unknown future and I have spent a good portion of my life working past such things as I see them as a hinderance to clear thinking. > So again, you have a gentleman's agreement and don't know if the next in > line is a gentleman. If a business venture takes a longer term view of > things, which anyone who ever made a business plan worth the cost of the > paper it's printed on would do, then Sealand and by extension HavenCo > looks like a partner you can deal with (or don't) on a month-to-month > basis. Our long term view allows us to participate at any location for the benefit of clients. Losing one location would not jeapordize the Business in any way. Think of how the internet is protected from locallized nuclear war. > That in turn is not something I usually do - and I believe you to be more > solid as well. Even the move of Katz Global to Panama suggestes foresight > and careful planning. ok > > > It is suprising to me that the people who should be the most outspoken about > > > government are the first to complain when there is none, ... > I always considered governments as a good thing - when enjoyed in small > quantities. I like the protection of the rule of law, I enjoy the benefits > of a criminal code and enforcement agencies that let me sleep at night I do not need a Government to feel good sleeping at night and truthfully I would sleep much better at night knowing there was no governmnet becasue they are always the first ones to crash in your door. I sleep well at night becasue I am armed at all times. (or > posting to this list) knowing that a teenage step daughter will be safe > when walking home from a party three blocks away, with a friend at 4 am. My daughter is armed at all times and probably would not be walking down a road in my city at 4am. Common sense goes a long way here. > In fact, I'm even a monarchist at heart (those of you who know me, know > why ;o). ok > What I dislike are double standards, absence of standards and being at the > mercy of a government that doesn't follow it's own rules, makes rules as > they go, OR has none. Ok, I do not believe that the absence of standards/morals is a bad thing. I believe as many do that you are free to do anything you like as long as you do not go up against the wishes of another beings personal freedoms as related to them individually. I think that people with strong morals (usually religious based) are the problem, not the solution. > In other words, I like the Malaysian model of government and dislike the > American one. I would probably dislike both. > > > > ok fine. So you would rather pay lower fees to have your servers in the USA > > guaranteeing your customers are at the mercy of the > > Government? > Certainly! nuff said There is only so much interference from the US government, as > long as everybody plays by the rules. When we do get an inquiry, as > happens from time to time, mainly by the USPS, we answer their questions > as good as we must. without warrant or subpoena? That is actually breaking the law as it is your responsibility not to volunteer data to government officials. That is by their own laws. A client can sue you for not protecting their data. > Let's face it, most gov questions relate to potential fraud and it is a > good thing that fraudsters are having a hard time. right > On the other hand, we host dozens of highly controversial sites and the > gov only once had some questions about one of them, some of which we > answered and others which we didn't because we failed to see where the > answer was related to anything illegal. There is no opinion in these matters only the laws to guide yourself by. <It appears that this kind of > attitude is acceptable to everyone involved. We host political sites and > religious sites because we believe not only in freedom of speech, but also > that it is vital for an interested public to gather information from other > - even controversial - sources, in order to form an informed opinion. > At the same time, we host anything else that does not conflict with our > TOS and policies. That is a given,,, > > But I honestly believe that simple fact that we are straight forward in > our approach is why we have a 'mutually beneficial relationship' with the > US gov. That is interesting... How are you to benefit the GOV? By willfully providing your clients data to them by a simple phone call you receive? how do they benefit you? by not confiscating your servers to date? > We try to ensure that sites we host are above the board and shut down > sites when we find out that they are breaking any laws, as I'm sure you do > as well. sure... you have to or you become liable. > This means of course, that even if a client would host in Panama or indeed > in Sealand with you, but was stealing investors' money inan investment > scam, then you would shut him down - just as we would. > If someone has a legal investment concept that pays high returns, then he > can as well host that in the US - or Europe, for that matter. Sure... but every case is an individual one. > > > > What happens when a clients competition tries to get rid of them by > > complaining to some agency and they start a false investigation? > That is then when having a spotless reputation with investigating bodies > becomes a relevant bargaining chip. Right, like when your friend Ronnie from the SEC of New York calls you up to get client data becasue he knows you are a pushover becasue you are afraid of the consequences and feel you need bargaining chips so they use you and re-use you and then you are no better than godaddy who does just that with their "supposedly" privacy clients data. I am not saying this is the case, but you make it sound like this. > Of course, there is always the issue that we don't know the real identity > of some of our clients - especially those who live overseas and those who > pay with e-gold. We can't really ensure that someone who uses the privacy > hosting options and pays with e-gold is who he says he is. You collect data from your clients? <But, at the > same time, there is no law that would force the client to disclose his > identity to us unless it is required for fulfilment of the contract, which > in most cases it isn't. TRUE! > Clients sign up, agree not to use the account for illegal purposes and pay > by e-gold. If we get a complaint about a site operator, then we become > active, but until that time, they have a constitutional right to privacy. > Which by the way is something they have neither in Sealand nor in Panama > ;o) hmmm/// becasue they do not need a constitutional right to privacy like americans do becasue they take privacy much more seriously and it is just a given. I do not believe in the constitution for reasons that might take a while to explain, but briefly I feel that the constitution was written for the purpose of control by the people who set out to control this country and its peoples and that again leads back to some exteranneous force controlling my life and I do not agree with that. It is a very clever document and I am a big fan of it for what it really is and how clever it is in terms of its effects. > > > Most hosting companies roll over so easy and they are so afraid of the > > spotlight. Shame on them! > I agree on both points. But that only means that they are stupid. I > wouldn't mind a bit of spotlight for cyberica.net... You just said you collect brownie points with your mutual relationship and here you say that those companies are stuppid. I am confused by your words I suppose. > > > > They have rules... > > No spam, no kiddie porn, and they will turn you in to interpol if you are a > > terrorist. oh... and pay your bills or you get shut off. > > > And that is where the trouble starts: What defines a terrorist? One man's > terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, one man's soldier is another > man's invading terrorist. Who decides, where is the rule, what is the > definition? > Oh, and what about fraud? Hate crimes? Credit card number auctions? I'm > sure they won't host them either - but it's not in the rules. Without > rules and guidelines, you don't know which of your customers would cross a > line... I am sure they will notify you ;-) And I am sure they will keep right on hosting you for $1500 a month once you comply. > > Two mentions of bill paying. Hmmm. What have you heard? We are infamous > for paying months ahead (makes the accounting easier), own most of the > servers we operate, outright and are involved in the ownership of one of > the data centers we use. So, your source seems to be unreliable at best > ;o) > > You lost me here... What source and when did I mention your finances? > > Do you enjoy these protections under the Autrailian Commonwealth? > > (This is where you are right?) > Nope on both counts. We are an American company after all (amongst other > things) > So, American law applies to our hosting division. But the administration > is elsewhere, holding structures are somewhere else, and I am somewhere > completely different altogether. > One might say we picked, mixed and matched, the best jurisdiction for each > individual division and the most fitting physical location for everything > else. The beauty of the net, really. Currently we have eleven formal > companies and business entities in five jurisdictions, not counting reps > and agents. > > Sounds confusing but if your businesses require it then wonderful. > > <<<If the conspirators fail, then they will first > > <<<go after the service providers, next after the ventures based on or using > > <<<Sealand and finally make things difficult for everyone remotely related to > > <<<Sealand - such as your customers hosting there. > > > > I disagree with this statement and think it is 100% false. How could they even > > find out who the customers are? > > They could read this list... set up a hosting account with you and trace > the server location to Sealand... Tracing a server location does not give up client data or even URLs of client sites. > > > For something like this to > > happen it has to be an act of war. > Not at all. Tracing customers of HavenCo is not exactly difficult. > Harrassing them in their location of business is then the logical next > step. No war required. Not even a helicopter ride to Sealand. huh? > > > > <<<Now, while sticking to Sealand might earn you a medal for bravery (now, > > <<<there is an idea), it is not necessarily a wise business choice. > > > > Again I disagree, although I always appreciate your opinion. What is the nature of > > a wise business choice? Is it one where you earn > > a profit on your investment legally? Well then... > Not exactly. I would consider a wise business choice a decission that > ensures best possible service to your clients while generating a profit > for yourself. > Meaning, the risk of getting client's accounts involved in a turf war or > governmental pi**ing contest is in my opinion not a wise choice because > the possible gains for client and you alike do not warrant the risks and > efforts taken. > > But, I am known to be pragmatic about these things and try to find the > most pratical solution, such as registering a company and maintining > accounts and an office address in the US (which some people by now equate > with making a pact with the devil). Of course, the marketing company > registered elsewhere. If you register your company in the US and reside elsewhere, what is the point of exposing yourself to that? > > Either way, I really like the whole Sealand concept. I find it gutsy and > romantic and the stuff to make movies about. But I try to not base a > business on what feels good, but on what is practical, efficient and gives > me (and hence our clients) the best possible facilities and services for > the lowest possible price with the least possible hassles. > Indeed, I believe you are doing the same thing. Maybe you just didn't look > at the potential trouble Sealand might bring for your clients under the > aspect of effort and risk related to benefit and cost. I see no trouble here at all... Sealand has been around since 1967 fighting the Government in the courts and winning. > > Now, if Sealand started issuing passports and establishing consulates and > trade missions, then that could make all the difference... (if they had > some more clear cut rules and regulations, that is). And i might then feel the need to move our email service somewhere without regulations like that. > > Cheers, > Robert. Gordon H. www.katzglobal.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
