--- David Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 12:56 -0700, John Hebert > wrote: > > > I don't think that there are any useful, > completely > > > legitimate and > > > perfectly legal purposes; in my mind, that's the > > > whole point. The data > > > haven allows you to skirt the law in your > country of > > > origin. That's all > > > it needs to do. > > > > I disagree _very_ strongly with this point. There > are > > many perferctly legal reasons that I can think for > > someone or some entity wanting to use HavenCo's > > services. What about government criticism and > dissent, > > where that government's law enforcement feel it is > > entitled to censorship? I'm sure there are quite a > few > > Chinese and Iranian dissidents who would like to > host > > their websites in a datacenter that won't respond > to a > > subpoena for upload logs. > > John, I think you missed my point entirely, because > I was saying exactly > what you are saying right now, just in a different > way. > > If a government makes dissent illegal, then take > your dissent to where > it can be published without consequence; a data > haven.
Ah, my apologies. I only skimmed the rest of the paragraph after you stated: "I don't think that there are any useful, > completely > > > legitimate and > > > perfectly legal purposes" and missed your point entirely. > I'm not going to piddle around with the definition > of what is legal or > not. Well, it seems that a rule of thumb is: whatever makes the said government happy is legal; that which does not, is not. ;) This brings another question to mind: maybe nation-states are becoming obsolete because of the Internet? > Yes, and I am also aware of Indymedia getting > threatened for publishing > bad reports about the voting machines, but then > plaintiff being denied > in court. I had forgotten about that! > I AGREE WITH YOU JOHN. :) I did from the beginning, > you just aren't > seeing it. You are right. Man, I need to calm down and think more carefully before responding to the emails. :P > There is no way that they could have been seized. I wouldn't go that far. I'd say: Ashcroft's stormtroopers could have seized it, but it would have caused a lot of hoopla. Maybe a "hoopla-causing" mechanism should be built into any datahaven, so that when the stormtroopers break down the doors, they are captured in live video and then press releases are generated automatically and sent out around the world. So, the idea is make it more trouble than it is worth to seize the data. I hereby claim this security mechanism as licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/). ;) > It > could have easily > been interpreted as an act of war on Sealand. > Sealand exists in that > nebulous grey area, of whether it's a sovereign > nation or not, but even > in that light, they do sit in Britain's territorial > waters, and it would > be a huge international incident to storm some ships > up there and bust > the doors in. David Blair seems to be pretty cozy with GWB lately. If Ashcroft's stormtroopers stormed HavenCo, I think Blair would be an apologist for it. However, I agree; the British people and many others would go nuts. John _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
