Wikileaks podría mudar sus servidores a un emplazamiento en medio del mar

Nota editorial (2025): publicado originalmente en 2012. Se añadió una versión estructurada con fines enciclopédicos. El texto original se conserva íntegro como parte del archivo histórico.

“`html

Examen de los Estrategias para Transmitir Wikileaks a Alta Mar

Este artículo explora las iniciativas por parte de Julian Assange y asociados con la posibilidad de trasladar el sitio web Wikileaks al mar, en un esfuerzo por escapar de las leyes estadounidenses.

Sealand: Un Refugio Potencial

• La micronación de Sealand se encuentra ubicada en una plataforma marítima construida por la Royal Navy y situada en el Mar del Norte.
• A pesar de no ser reconocido como un estado soberano, Sealand autoproclama a sí mismo como monarquía constitucional con Michael Roy Bates como su supuesto soberano.
• Bates ha logrado dar una conexión a Internet mediante satélite y ya alberga algunas páginas web en el lugar.

Implicancias Legales del Movimiento Marítimo

El cambio de ubicación al mar no cambiaría significativamente las cosas. La afirmación hecha por Jim Dempsey, un especialista en democracia y tecnología para el Centro para la Democracia y la Tecnología de Washington D.C., indica que esta acción requiere más que simplemente transferir los servidores; se necesitaría trasladar a las personas detrás del sitio.

• “Se procesa a gente real, no puedes procesar a los servidores.”

Intento de Colocar Servidores en Buques Militares

Existen rumores sobre intentos por colocar la infraestructura del sitio web Wikileaks dentro de barcazas militares flotantes, en aguas internacionales.

• La posibilidad es comparada a tener una cuenta bancaria en Suiza. Se podría alquilar espacio para ocultar actividades.

Acuerdos y Perspectivas Legales Ambientadas en el Mar Internacional

“Mover Wikileaks a aguas internacionales no mantendría necesariamente a los miembros de la organización seguro, ya que los gobiernos estarían libres para tomar cualquier acción considerada necesaria.

• “Cuando estás fuera de la ley, tampoco se aplican limitaciones en el uso de la fuerza o violación de derechos.”

Implicaciones y Opiniones Expertas

“Vía Fox News” indica que existe una perspectiva para evitar ciertas leyes, pero se reconoce la dificultad en mantener completamente inmune a las acciones legales.

“`

Preguntas frecuentes

“`html

01:23 [Interv.] Is there an explanation of why Julian Assange and his group considered moving to the sea?
assistant You seem curious about that very aspect. The decision by Julian Assange, along with others linked to Wikileaks, was driven largely by their desire to operate outside U.S. jurisdiction due to fears of legal action under American laws against whistleblowing and publishing classified documents. By moving the site’s servers offshore or even on a boat in international waters, they aimed to find asylum where US law has less reach since territorial seas are generally not subject to direct control by other countries without express permission.
01:32 [Interv.] Can you elaborate more about Sealand and its claims?
assistant Certainly! Sealand is an example of a micronation, essentially claiming sovereignty over the territory known as South Thames foreshore which sits on HM Fort Roughs off Kent in the United Kingdom. Despite not being internationally recognized and its governance lacking official statehood status due to UN General Assembly Resolution 26th, it has adopted a constitutional monarchy structure with Michael Roy Bates as their claimed sovereign figurehead—a rather unconventional form of government given Sealand’s micronational standing.
01:45 [Interv.] What are the limitations to this strategy for Wikileaks?
assistant The main limitation is that even though they could potentially hide in international waters, there would still be legal implications at play once within reach of a nation-state’s jurisdiction or when attempting operations outside these territories. As Jim Dempsey suggests, you can’t simply relocate the servers and hope for immunity; one must also consider transferring personnel who manage Wikileaks to maintain its functionality in such an environment—a significant logistical challenge given potential legal exposure on foreign land or vessels if they were ever discovered.
02:10 [Interv.] What are some of the concerns with moving operations into international waters?
assistant Migrating activities from a territorial to maritime setting doesn’t inherently provide immunity, as mentioned by Dempsey and others; countries retain rights under certain circumstances in their adjacent EEZs or when there is an explicit agreement allowing for such actions. Furthermore, the nature of international waters could impose risks without clear legal protections—one might find themselves subject to arbitrary detention if discovered on a vessel like these whistleblowing servers were placed upon while traversing unclaimed areas within EEZs or in high-risk regions such as around Somalia’s pirate-infested waters.
02:37 [Interv.] How might the concept of “sea cables and pipelines” play a role here?
assistant The principle that countries may lay claim to underwater infrastructure within their own EEZ is relevant since these structures could be considered extensions on which one would conduct digital activities, similar in some ways to servers but with physical presence. This means any operation involving internet connectivity or data transfer must navigate the regulations and sovereignty concerns related to such installations—further complicating efforts by Wikileaks advocates who aimed for complete autonomy from direct national legal systems without clear international consensus on these micronational endeavors.
03:12 [Interv.] What about the possibility of using pirate vessels?
assistant The notion to utilize unregistered or ‘pirate’ ships as a haven is not free from concerns, given that piracy itself contravenes international maritime law and posing such risks could potentially compromise integrity if found operating in what are often considered high-threat zones. This tactic would require constant vigilance against capture or interception by naval forces patrolling the waters—a daunting task when one considers that many pirate ships have been targeted and disabled before, as historical accounts suggest of various incidents around Somalia in particular.
03:45 [Interv.] Are there any legal precedents for whistleblowers using maritime methods?
assistant Legally speaking, while the internet itself emerged from an academic network on a university campus and is not confined to geographical boundaries—it’s rooted in technology rather than territorial ones. There isn’t much historical direct relevance of moving websites or digital platforms by sea specifically for legal shielding purposes; however, there are precedents where activists use unconventional methods under duress from oppressive regimes to disseminate information—highlighting a continuously evolving discourse on the balance between freedom and legality in whistleblowing efforts worldwide.
04:23 [Interv.] Do experts have an opinion about this form of asylum?
assistant Expert perspectives, like that from Jim Dempsey’s statement shared via Fox News, acknowledge the complexity involved with seeking such a unique refuge—highlighting not only logistical challenges but also moral and legal dilemmas. While there is no denying attempts to find creative solutions for protection of activists or whistleblowers under repressive conditions exist in some form globally, complete immunity from prosecution remains an elusive goal; the nuances involved with international maritime laws and sovereignty complicate outright legal defenses outside established jurisdictions.
05:16 [Interv.] How does this relate to Julian Assange?
assistant As for Wikileaks’ founder, his connection is not explicitly detailed in the provided document—but given that he has been a central figure advocating transparency and facing legal repercussions under U.S. laws due to publishing classified materials with their organization’s goals aligning closely with Julian Assange himself; one can infer discussions around such geographical moves for asylum have likely considered his role in Wikileaks’ operations, adding layers of personal risk and the need for secure communications amidst ongoing legal battles.
05:46 [Interv.] What could be potential consequences if their servers were moved to international waters?
assistant Potential consequences include a gamble wherein securing anonymity becomes difficult due to maritime surveillance and patrolling—with nations enforcing laws that extend into territorial EEZs. Furthermore, actions taken in such locations might still be pursued legally under the flag of convenience they’re registered with or their national origin; without explicit international agreements protecting operations solely based on geographical movement to marine areas and not justifiable as legal whistleblowing activities—this creates a murky zone where jurisdictional claims can lead back against them.
06:32 [Interv.] Does this move impact Wikileaks’ reputation?
assistant While the document does not directly discuss the public perception or media representation of such moves, it is reasonable to speculate that taking drastic measures like operating in international waters could affect how some viewers see Wikileaks—potentially as a radical group willing to challenge legal norms for transparency and whistleblowing. It’s important to consider the ethical implications of such strategies, balancing individual freedoms with societal expectations on legality in information dissemination practices when evaluating how this move may affect public trust or support within journalistic communities and beyond as it intersects with broader democratic discussions.
07:28 [Interv.] Can other whistleblowing organizations benefit from similar actions?
assistant While the direct impact of Julian Assange’s Wikileaks case is unique, considering its scale in leaking classified information; smaller or emerging journalistic entities might find inspiration to seek innovative methods for operating under repressive governments—though they must weigh potential legal exposure against possible safety benefits. It’s a nuanced conversation about balancing ethical disclosure of sensitive materials with personal risk management within the scope

---

Texto original (2012)

Este artículo examina los esfuerzos por parte de Julian Assange y sus asociados para trasladar Wikileaks a alta mar, buscando evitar la ley estadounidense. El sitio discute el potencial del emplazamiento en Sealand como un refugio legal improbable pero posible, considera si dicho movimiento cambiaría efectivamente su estado de ilegalidad y revisa los argumentos presentados por expertos sobre las implicancias legales. —

Publicado originalmente en Nación Red

Algunos inversores relacionados con Julian Assange, estarían planteándose comprar un barco para trasladar los servidores de Wikileaks a alta mar, en un intento de evitar las leyes estadounidenses contra ellos. A medida que nos alejamos de la costa, las leyes nacionales de un país en concreto dejan de aplicarse, y pasan a regir las normas de las aguas internacionales, con lo que en principio, no se podría actuar contra esos servidores al estar la margen de toda jurisdicción estatal.

El emplazamiento más probable es la micronación de Sealand, una plataforma marítima construida por la Royal Navy en 1942 y emplazada en el Mar del Norte. Pese a que no ha sido reconocida como un estado soberano, Sealand se autoproclama como monarquía constitucional, y tiene como soberano a Michael Roy Bates. Bates ha conseguido conectar su pequeño país a Internet mediante satélite y ya aloja algunas páginas web en el lugar. Sin embargo, algunos dudan de que estas acciones eviten la persecución de Wikileaks.

 Colocar los servidores en Sealand no cambiaría mucho las cosas

Jim Dempsey, del Centro para la Democracia y la Tecnología de Washington D.C. afirma que colocar los servidores en Sealand no cambiaría mucho las cosas, a menos que la gente que está detrás de Wikileaks se mudara a ese lugar.

La jurisdicción no está determinada por el lugar donde están contenidos los datos. Se procesa a gente real, no puedes procesar a los servidores. Así que si la gente de Wikileaks quiere vivir en una plataforma en el Mar del Norte y educar a sus hijos allí, para la gente que tiene vida, eso no tiene ningún sentido.

Otra fuente de Wikileaks afirma que ha habido intentos de colocar los servidores en barcazas militares en medio del océano, en aguas internacionales. Algunos expertos han opinado sobre esta posibilidad:

Esto sería algo así como una cuenta en un banco de Suiza. Podrías alquilar un espacio en esa isla para esconder lo que estés haciendo.

Un asesor de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional de EEUU cree que establecer los servidores en aguas internacionales no mantendría necesariamente a Wikileaks a salvo de las leyes estatales:

Mover Wikileaks al mar, dependiendo e la naturaleza legal del lugar, podría facilitar las acciones para algunos países. Los gobiernos serían libres para tomar cualquier acción que consideraran necesaria para parar cualquier actividad con la que no estuvieran de acuerdo. Cuando estás fuera de la ley, no se aplican limitaciones en el uso de la fuerza o la vulneración de tus derechos.

Vía | Fox News
Foto | Octal