Re: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[Bill Stewart]

At 12:58 AM 6/17/00 -0400, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 01:02:34AM -0400, petro uttered:
>
>I think the other options are places that are already Permanent
>Autonomous Zones like Christiantown in Copenhagen.  Not sure how many
>other places there are like that...

But the Free Town is mainly free because it's got an agreement with
the surrounding government not to get out of hand.
It's got rules against guns and hard drugs, and if they were seriously
violated I suspect the police would move in and shut the place down.
Its autonomy is mainly limited to minor quality-of-life issues,
like cannabis and housing.  I don't know about taxation -
there probably aren't a lot of VAT taxes collected on hash sales,
but that doesn't mean that people who live there don't have to pay
Danish income taxes.  (And the local hash just *wasn't* very good :-)

If Christiana were to start a bank, or build a large gambling casino,
or start exporting large quantities of untaxed liquor or hash,
they'd probably also get hit.  I don't see a data haven having much more
advantage there than in downtown Copenhagen.


Thanks! 
Bill
Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

Re: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[petro]

>petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>  If the SAS are coming through the front door, you just went bankrupt.
>>
>>  If England, France, Belgium etc. *new* that you would dump a
>>  massively toxic witches brew into their fishing waters, they might
>>  make sure that you weren't invaded by guys with guns.
>>
>>  Then again, they just may shoot your off-site personel in
>>  their sleep, and blockade your platform until you starve.
>
>It's still a nuclear-power type of scenario. One of the problems with
>nuclear powers is that if you back them into a corner, they have
>nothing personally to lose by nuking you and anyone else who gets in
>your way. They're dead anyway. So long as your adversary thinks that
>you're insane enough to detonate your weapon, they'll leave you alone.
>
>Detonating a dirty nuke sixty miles off the coast of Britain would

ITYM 6. Sealand is between England and The Mainland. I think 
even a clean nuke (think of all the superheated sea[water steam 
plasma]) would be problematic.

Re: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[David Marshall]

petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   If the SAS are coming through the front door, you just went bankrupt.
> 
>   If England, France, Belgium etc. *new* that you would dump a 
> massively toxic witches brew into their fishing waters, they might 
> make sure that you weren't invaded by guys with guns.
> 
>   Then again, they just may shoot your off-site personel in 
> their sleep, and blockade your platform until you starve.

It's still a nuclear-power type of scenario. One of the problems with
nuclear powers is that if you back them into a corner, they have
nothing personally to lose by nuking you and anyone else who gets in
your way. They're dead anyway. So long as your adversary thinks that
you're insane enough to detonate your weapon, they'll leave you alone.

Detonating a dirty nuke sixty miles off the coast of Britain would
cause a toxic cloud to blow over Europe. The public panic might be the
worst part. 

Then again, NATO might just bomb the platform with a low-yield nuclear
bomb dropped from an aircraft, too.

Re: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[David Honig]

At 06:34 PM 6/12/00 -0400, David Marshall wrote:
 At the press conference, the government just
>tells the truth:

Gimme a break.  The crater was a 'federal day care center',
at least on the first floor...










  

RE: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[petro]

>  >Simply fill one of the lower legs of the platfrom with
>  >mercury, and a little high explosives. Have a panic button in the ops
>  >center. The SAS lands, and 1000 gallons of pure mercury are blasted
>  >out into the channel. That wouldn't be nice.
>
>Plays heck with your mercury delay line memory :-)
>
>
>Also, while pure mercury is bad stuff, it's not as dangerous as
>mercury compounds, such as organics or the oxide,
>or lots of other stuff.  Similarly, you could store toxic waste,
>making your self-defense system a profit-making business...
>
>But if you explicitly dump the waste yourself, not only
>are you harming a bunch of non-participants in your fight,
>you've got a liability problem that exceeds any profits you may have made.
>Ain't worth it.

If the SAS are coming through the front door, you just went bankrupt.

If England, France, Belgium etc. *new* that you would dump a 
massively toxic witches brew into their fishing waters, they might 
make sure that you weren't invaded by guys with guns.

Then again, they just may shoot your off-site personel in 
their sleep, and blockade your platform until you starve.

Re: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[David Marshall]

David Honig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> At 01:50 AM 6/12/00 -0400, Sean Roach wrote:
> >Nah!  That would be environmental terrorism.  
> 
> Not terrorism if you're at war.  Look at what the US leaves
> around after a spat.  
> 
> I guess defoliating south asia wasn't environmental terrorism because
> we are Amerikans, ja?  And all those cute perfectly circular ponds...
> 
> Hg is not very effective though, takes years to get into the
> food chain, and could be cleaned up fairly easily.  

Yeah. Pure mercury isn't that damaging. The oxides and organics are
far worse, but I think that's already been covered here.

Perhaps a better way would be mixing up some biological or chemical
agents which would cause a death cloud to float across Europe. I can't
advocate that, of course, and I don't think it would be that effective
either. 

See, it wouldn't be effective because the world nuclear powers would
just drop a (clean) nuke on it and blow the site and its defense
systems to oblivion. At the press conference, the government just
tells the truth: the platform was inhabited by people who had managed
to produce or acquire a large quantity of chemical and biological
weapons of mass destruction and threatened to release them if their
demands (i.e. "Leave us alone and keep our network feeds operating.")
weren't met.

It should also be noted that the notion of a "clean" nuke is entirely
relative. 

RE: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[David Honig]

At 01:50 AM 6/12/00 -0400, Sean Roach wrote:
>Nah!  That would be environmental terrorism.  

Not terrorism if you're at war.  Look at what the US leaves
around after a spat.  

I guess defoliating south asia wasn't environmental terrorism because
we are Amerikans, ja?  And all those cute perfectly circular ponds...

Hg is not very effective though, takes years to get into the
food chain, and could be cleaned up fairly easily.  

Lots of people would
>get rather upset.  Remember our reaction to Hussain ordering the oil
>derricks lit on his troops way out?

Yes we stood around the Screen and had our minute of hate.  Felt
good, eh?

Its called depriving the enemy of resources.  SOP.  All's fair...












  

RE: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[Bill Stewart]

>   Simply fill one of the lower legs of the platfrom with 
>mercury, and a little high explosives. Have a panic button in the ops 
>center. The SAS lands, and 1000 gallons of pure mercury are blasted 
>out into the channel. That wouldn't be nice.

Plays heck with your mercury delay line memory :-)


Also, while pure mercury is bad stuff, it's not as dangerous as
mercury compounds, such as organics or the oxide,
or lots of other stuff.  Similarly, you could store toxic waste,
making your self-defense system a profit-making business...

But if you explicitly dump the waste yourself, not only
are you harming a bunch of non-participants in your fight,
you've got a liability problem that exceeds any profits you may have made.
Ain't worth it.  

Thanks! 
Bill
Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

RE: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[Sean Roach]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At 09:27 PM 6/11/00 -0400, you wrote:
>>Lucky:
>>
>>  >I agree with Peter in that Sealand may wish to consider adding a
>> nuke to 
>>  >their budget of small arms. Nuclear powers are the only
>> sovereigns that 
>>  >command any kind of respect from the other members in the club.
>>
>>Kick that N up to BC arms so the start-up budget is doable. The
>>cost of a suitcase nuke is about that of a fully loaded 18-wheeler
>>(~$150K) while B or C fannypacks can be obtained for <10K. Say
>>there are a half- dozen sysadmins on Sealand (if any), each could
>>wear one of these which would activate if any server is improperly
>>tampered with. Say you love the sysadmins, then have them wear BC
>>protective suits under the fannypacks. Say you wonder if a sysadmin
>>will freak from seabreezed gullshit and mistakenly tamper with a
>>server, then have the fannypack contain an injection kit that will
>>VX the nut if a PAL is mishandled. Say you wonder if all the
>>sysadmins will freak from bonephone attack by the TLAs, then ban
>>headsets at work. That will reduce the pool of employables to <1.
>>If the servers can indefinitely run without human intervention,
>>pack Sealand with Ebola strains, cover those containers with quilts
>>of GB, all rigged to activate with power loss or server tamper If
>>this is uninteresting stick with interstate flattening of Beetles. 
>
>
>   Simply fill one of the lower legs of the platfrom with 
>mercury, and a little high explosives. Have a panic button in the
>ops  center. The SAS lands, and 1000 gallons of pure mercury are
>blasted  out into the channel. That wouldn't be nice.  
>
>
Nah!  That would be environmental terrorism.  Lots of people would
get rather upset.  Remember our reaction to Hussain ordering the oil
derricks lit on his troops way out?

Better would be to keep about 1024GB of compromising information on
file at all times.  Dump it to usenet, Geocities, and ABCNews
simotaneously.  No muss, no fuss, and the average joe would be too
busy fuming at all the ways his trusted leadership had betrayed his
ideals and morales.

But then again, we have Clinton, and nothing's happened.

Good luck,

Sean

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use 

iQA/AwUBOUR6OZHDoiHtqFDZEQIqeACg+ZfxPQMlXtRBqCnItSgWu8VqNgUAoNHn
bJj2IEOXd2OK03Y9j5lqr/xl
=pyl9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

RE: Trusting HavenCo [was: Sealand Rant] CPUNK

[petro]

>Lucky:
>
>  >I agree with Peter in that Sealand may wish to consider adding a nuke to
>  >their budget of small arms. Nuclear powers are the only sovereigns that
>  >command any kind of respect from the other members in the club.
>
>Kick that N up to BC arms so the start-up budget is doable. The cost of
>a suitcase nuke is about that of a fully loaded 18-wheeler (~$150K) while
>B or C fannypacks can be obtained for <10K. Say there are a half-
>dozen sysadmins on Sealand (if any), each could wear one of these
>which would activate if any server is improperly tampered with. Say
>you love the sysadmins, then have them wear BC protective suits
>under the fannypacks. Say you wonder if a sysadmin will freak
>from seabreezed gullshit and mistakenly tamper with a server, then
>have the fannypack contain an injection kit that will VX the nut if a
>PAL is mishandled. Say you wonder if all the sysadmins will freak
>from bonephone attack by the TLAs, then ban headsets at work.
>That will reduce the pool of employables to <1. If the servers
>can indefinitely run without human intervention, pack Sealand
>with Ebola strains, cover those containers with quilts of GB,
>all rigged to activate with power loss or server tamper
>If this is uninteresting stick with interstate flattening of Beetles.


Simply fill one of the lower legs of the platfrom with 
mercury, and a little high explosives. Have a panic button in the ops 
center. The SAS lands, and 1000 gallons of pure mercury are blasted 
out into the channel. That wouldn't be nice.