http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5059676.html Here are a few comments and observations concerning the above article.
Notice the headline refers to "haven for questionable sites" -- this is perjorative from the start, and telegraphs the article's slant.
I think that's basically unfair to the author of the article, Declan McCullagh. Declan is pretty well known among liberty enthusiasts and privacy types as a decent reporter on matters technological. His "Politech" mailing list is an excellent service which keeps me up to date on privacy matters both political and economic.
I don't know any reporters who get to write their own headlines. If the editor at CNet decided to make some controversy out of the "questionable sites" tag, I think it unfair to assign to Declan any responsibility for that choice. If staff writers write their own headlines at CNet, it would be a worthy criticism.
Following that are some statements which are very unlikely to be true, such as HavenCo having only six customers left.
Again, that's not something that Declan reported. It is also a misquote of what Ryan Lackey said. Ryan said that the company was headed for financial ruin with "only about six" customers left. Declan also reports that the Havenco representative says there are far more than six customers.
If typical would mean that the whole operation is subsisting on under $10k a month. No possible way.
Last time I got a quote from Havenco for co-location, it was $18K a year. That would imply six customers represent $9K per month.
They still have employees. They still have microwave links up. They have power and supplies to the base. They added more support staff after Lackey left. They now have 24 hour telephone hotline support which they never had before. They recently installed a whole bunch of new network hardware.
These are good things.
Who the hell is paying for all of this?
The choices are always: investors providing debt or equity capital for improvements or customers providing revenues to pay for expenses. We have no way of knowing.
The Bates family, hoping to recoup the cost from half a dozen customers?
It isn't clear to me that Roy and Michael Bates are the only investors in Havenco.
Riiight. Nor have we heard so much as a whisper about a price increase, nor had them badger us in any way on those few occasions when we have been a little tardy in paying our bill. It seems to me that a company in dire financial straits could hardly fail to do that.
I'm curious whether Havenco accepts e-gold for payment. That would be pretty nifty.
Also, note that HavenCo recently had to deal with a bout of what their technical people (Ryan Lackey's successors) believed was intentional jamming of their shore-to-ship microwave transmitters.
Wow. I wonder who was jamming their transmitters. I mean, other than the British Navy. <smile>
They solved this by implementing some type of new technology that is so far rarely used, but which appears to have obviated most of the problems. The only hint that I got that the company might be in some financial distress would be that they mentioned in an update that they could not fully and completely eliminate all single points of failure in their network until all customers brought their accounts current and so gave them the cash to buy the necessary redundant equipment.
Wow. An impressive admission from any company.
After the 10 day outage we had back in late March/April I am sure they DID in fact lose some customers, or have some pay up late. However they also comped everybody a free month -- again, a company at death's door would hardly do that. Still there have got to be customers out there wondering if they are indeed going to stay in business long term.
It is an interesting question.
Hence, the timely release of the above article into the press.
Huh? Declan went to Defcon, interviewed Ryan, submitted his article to his editor(s) and it was published. How is the timing otherwise interesting?
This article reminds me of some of the items that I have seen written about offshore banks and online gambling outfits after they became targeted for takedown.
I think the idea that Havenco has been targeted for take down is not very difficult to conceive.
I think the idea that Declan was tasked with writing an article to promote the cause of the agency taking down Havenco is a bit weird, or offensive. I don't think Declan is in league with anyone.
My interpretation of it is that the jamming effort having failed, and still wanting to drive HavenCo out of business, the establishment is now planting stories in the press (especially techie oriented press) that are intended to scare away existing or potential customers by implying that:
Well, if Declan's article is a plant, it is an awfully even-handed and courteous instance of such.
1) HavenCo is hosting unsavory businesses, which might get the whole thing shut down somehow due to legal action or otherwise.
Well, they are. I mean, what could be more unsavory than Seagold/Seamail/PMMIT. Private messaging movement?! In the view of the establishment, anyone wanting to encrypt their e-mail must have something to hide, right? (My PGP key available upon request.;-)
Another unsavory business which has registered its domains to point to a Sealand mailing address is The Gold Casino: http://8715605.thegoldcasino.com/ Again, the establishment view is that online gambling is bad and wrong. Presumably because it competes with all those mafia-controlled land-based casinos, and is largely untaxed.
Be clear that I am not one who shares the establishment views.
2) HavenCo is run by dishonest people, who owe a former employee over $220 grand and refuse to pay him.
Again, that is not what Declan reported. He reported that Ryan claims as much, but that isn't in any way a statement that "Havenco is run by dishonest people." We don't know what the nature of the debt is. Maybe the debt is past due, maybe not. I also don't see where either Ryan or Declan said that payment was refused.
I don't see a statement from Havenco about this $220K claim, but that's fairly typical. Most companies won't make a disclosure about a private matter of that sort.
3) The whole operation is on its last legs, having already "failed".
I don't see where that is reported. It seems to be consistent with some of the things Ryan said, but so what? One man's opinion is his opinion.
4) The Bates family really doesn't care at all about the privacy being offered, and will compromise it under pressure at any time.
Again, I don't see where that was reported. It appears that the Bates family is sufficiently concerned about their existing customers to pass on some very lucrative business opportunity that they may have felt would generate bad results for them.
5) A disgruntled ex-employee is presented as the credible "inside source" for all of this (even though I haven't heard from Ryan Lackey or even heard his name in well over a year).
I think Declan interviewed Ryan. I gather that Ryan is known in Defcon circles. It may be that Declan credits Ryan with being honorable and reliable, and there may be reason for that view. However, Declan also took the time to gather information from Havenco. So, I don't see where the reader necessarily has to assume that Declan credits Ryan as truthful and Havenco as mendacious - nothing in Declan's writing implies anything of the sort.
The fact that a piece of cob web in the domain registry database still lists him is unconvincingly offered at the end to try to enhance his credibility.
I don't know that the "whois" paragraph says a thing about Ryan's credibility about Havenco doings of the present time. It seems very clear that it says something about Havenco being a bit sloppy with their domain registrations. Maybe they will adjust this stuff on renewal.
It is exactly the sort of techie detail that one would expect in a technical report.
6) The company's very plausible statements in rebuttal are made to sound like the false bravado used to cover a defeat or a forced retreat.
Huh? I don't get it. Declan quotes Havenco's rep extensively.
This is all obviously calculated to make existing customers nervous and potential customers skittish, thus contributing to the demise of the company on economic grounds.
Really? Declan made that calculation? I don't see why he would.
Very well written in terms of spin by the article's author or editor.
I agree, Declan writes very well.
And just like with any other such story, if you are not in a position to know what's REALLY going on with the subject matter you have no way to see through the spin or counter the fears which it is intended to provoke.
But, like every piece of information, it is up to the reader to establish whether he takes it seriously or not. My first reaction was: Ryan has some things to say, and he's got something against his former employers. Maybe there are problems with Havenco, but they deny it. So, other independent confirmation is needed.
That said, it is clear from both the jamming attempts and the drum beats now being sounded in the press that HavenCo and Sealand are in the crosshairs.
I think one article by Declan is hardly "drum beats...being sounded in the press."
They are a nuisance which the establishment obviously intends to eliminate.
When? I mean, they've been a thorn in the side of Harwich Haven Authority for quite a while, and haven't been eliminated. The British government appears to be taking the attitude that the fortress known as "Rough's Tower" is eventually going to rust and fall into the sea. On that scale, yes, they intend to see Sealand eliminated.
Freedom and hope for the common man are very dangerous to the powers that be.
That's true.
It remains to be seen whether HavenCo will be able and willing to fight back. My expectation is that they will.
Well, given that they were quoted extensively by Declan, that seems logical.
They have also spoken to with Michael Bates (aka Crown Prince Michael of
Sealand)and he has assured us that (Havenco) "We are here to stay."
Michael is a good egg, and should be expected to say stuff like that.
Regards,
Jim http://www.ezez.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.
