VISA is toast

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I just put this in the REDUX section but it really is a commentary on the mainframe computers worldwide that interact with VISA Interational, which in turn has mainframe sites in San Francisco, London, McClean VA, and Yokohama. I've made a couple of changes to the original posting.

This is a little long and maybe boring for the non-techies but I wanted to give you all an idea of my background before I give you my two E-ratings.

I'm a transplanted 40 year old Brit from London now living in sunny/foggy San Francisco, been here 5 years, love the country, love England too. I'm a computer professional, a "dinosaur" if you will. Left school at 18 and straight in to British Airways IT department as a "tape-ape" - nothing like starting at the bottom! Hey, but it was great fun, 18, well paid (relatively), cheap flights, saw the world over the next ten years. As a tape-ape you would sit at a printer, and as programmes would run the printer would spew out the VSN's (Volume Serial Numbers) of the tapes to load and you would jump up and load the tapes (manually, thread it through the tape drive onto the take-up spool). Got really quick, maybe 4-5 a minute:-) Usually two or three of us doing it, kept us fit, radio on, time passed quickly. Then it was a series of promotions to printer operator, output distributor, data controller, trainee operator (4 year course - excellent training), and so on up to eventually a shift leader in charge of 15 operators at Heathrow running about 15 different systems.

At 27 I went to Saudi Arabia and helped install the first realtime airline reservations system for Saudia. Promoted to realtime Coverage programmer, learnt Assembler (Aaaarrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhh!!!!). Then on to System One in Miami (the old Continental Airlines), Amadeus in Munich (a consortium of Airlines), American Airlines in Tulsa, SNCF (the French Railroad) in Lille (AA Sabre software), back to BA for the latest training, then finally to a major credit card company located in the Bay Area beginning with "V".

The point is all these positions have been with major mainframe systems, using predominantly legacy software, in a bunch of different countries. They have all been working with Realtime systems. These realtime systems have been patched over the last 30-40 years to the extent that would boggle the mind. New technology had been layered over old. There has usually been no consistency in sticking with the same hardware manufacturers for ease of maintenance etc. This will add to the upcoming problems.

Many people have no concept of what a mainframe is - we live in a PC culture after all. What I can see as clear as day is the interconnectivity problem between these mainframes, the networks, satellites, land lines, telecommunications, the power grid etc. etc. - this is what is going to bring the house of cards down.

Visa and Mastercard are now "compliant" - yeah right. This has not been proven, it cannot be proven without live realtime testing with live data in a real world situation. Visa interacts with 100,000 member banks worldwide. The vast majority of these banks will in no way be compliant. Therefore they will be sending Visa bad data, our "compliant" Visa programmes will route or modify this data according to the programme specifications, but the routed/modified data will in many/most cases by innacurate/corrupt. Assuming it gets delivered to the next entity in a corrupt state, that next entity that may or may not be compliant will in turn route or modify the data. The result of this scenario, in my humble opinion, will be total, worldwide chaos in the banking community.

Talking about cultures - the reason myself and a whole boatload of mainly Brits and Americans got to work in these countries in the first place was because there was no local expertise. In many cases, after all these years, this is *still* the case. Even now the data centres (other than AA at Tulsa, and VISA), are nearly all run by foreign expats. When TSHTF these expats will be gone, vamoosed, why would they stay?

Saudia will be toast.

SNCF certainly. Amadeus/BA/AA have got to fail for the reasons outlined above. Visa too - despite starting several years ago along with Mastercard. Garbage in, Garbage out. That's the way it will work. Not taking into account electricity and telecommunications, if either one fails we're done for. The consequences will be catastrophic in my opinion - unless I'm missing something, maybe my logic is faulty?

Working with these mainframes and telecomms sytems it's a wonder that things work as they do now - next year there will be absolutely no chance.

So what am I doing? Well, I've just resigned. Porsche is up for sale (anyone want a beautiful '79 911SC? No? neither do I - I can do far more with the money). Put my 401K into the safest overnight money market-type account earning no interest - but at least I can sleep at night relatively speaking:-) (I did this 5 months ago - I'm really suprised the markets have held up this long - watch this space!).

Come January I will cash out and pay my tax penalties. The 10% will not be due until, guess what, March of 2000! If there's an IRS around then I'll pay them. So in the meantime I'm hoping that things stay stable enough so I can get some money and start to make a few practical plans in early '99. Also I'm working on my family - my younger brother drives a cab here in the city and he "get's it". He hears things in his cab and is getting very worried. He's a great source of information in that regard. He is buying physical gold. Last week he paid $304 for a gold eagle. Today it is $312+... We are both playing a few gold options but probably will not be able to collect even if we are right. My older brother in LA has come around, he trusts my judgement (fool!) and is taking it seriously now that I've resigned etc. He feels powerless as he's pretty broke and can't afford to do much. That's where I and little bruv will come in - so, to sum up a rather depressing post I'm going for a 10 and a 5.

Great forum this - I've learned a lot, great people, you should be proud of yourselves.

Cheers, Andy

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 13, 1998

Answers

On the US side - a lot of places are just replacing or redesigning everything. I think if they are getting really really bad data from some places that threaten to crash the system they will just disconnect that data source from the system and put all transactions from that area on indefinite hold. This will probably save most of the US side of the system - but a lot of third world countries will indeed be 'toast'. Note that I don't KNOW what the contingency plan is - but it is what I would do and is just about all that can be done.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 13, 1998.

But Sir Davis,

Its worse than that: how long will it be until they (VISA/MC) notice it is bad data? Not everything will "look" contminated until each person gets his bill in early-mid Feb 2000. And even then, many people will probably have good statements. Or maybe none will.

After how many milion transactions, some of which will be good ones, of course, some will be mixed up good ones, and some will be fraudulant "good" ones taking advantage of the confusion.

Adding: Each transaction (worldwide) represents a merchant's and a supplier's life. Without these legitimate sales, the merchants can't continue in business. Without real expectation of getting repaid from VIA/MC/AMEX to their bank account - these guys would be better off not selling - not accepting any credit, but rather relying only on cash.

Then you have the run on the bank starting - for those who've not already pulled their money out.

My vote - I'd rather the telephone lines go down until the credit card companies get fixed, and get verified. Actually, I'd rather they both keep working

- but ......

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 13, 1998.


Good post, Andy. Thanks. Makes me want to rush out (nearly midnight) and buy a few more cans of tuna.

I think you just illustrated the full magnitude of the problem. It's worldwide, especially in the financial arena, it's highly computerized, and bad data can get propagated. Firewalls and filters only work to shut off the sources of bad data. If it's a financial business you simply can't disconnect the spigot without also shutting off the flow of money. Oh, my.

-- rocky (rknolls@hotmail.com), November 13, 1998.


Andy,

Appreciate the insight. If Saudi Arabia depends on foreign programmers, then it IS toast. A very recent GartnerGroup report puts Saudi Arabia into its "Level 3" catagory--a country where 50% of companies will experience mission-critical IT failures.

Also scary is that 50% of companies in Germany and Japan are expected to have mission-critical failures...

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 13, 1998.


Verrrry interesting.

When TSHTF these expats will be gone, vamoosed, why would they stay?
--

If it really HTF how will they travel?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 14, 1998.



Speaking from somewhat first hand experiance (I was there when the letter arrived and saw it with my own eyes), my friend who owns the two companies got a letter somewhere around 18 months ago about credit cards and the Year 2000. Even though he had purchased his terminals directly from his clearing house, they informed him that if his terminals were not compliant by December 31,1998 he would be fined $1500 PER terminal. And the fines would not stop there, if he went past the deadline he would contiue to be fined beyond that date for each terminal.

He ran the tests as instructed and passed. So he has talked with other retailers who got the same letters and they have all been running the tests. Yes there are still non-compliant terminals out there, but the amount of bad data is not going to be quite what you expect.

Don't think $1500 is enough of a fine per terminal. I was just thinking of our closest Wal-Mart, in my head I came up with *29* terminals. $43,500 for just that one store if they are not compliant. For smaller Wal-Marts they have less terminals so let's say I grudgingly say the average number of terminals is 20 (I feel it would be higher). So 20 X 2000 stores (they have more than that, but I don't know the exact number) So that would be 40,000 terminals, now times $1500 per terminal you are looking at $60,000,000! Now I have no idea if Wal-Mart is under this same deadline, but there are plenty of other chains with insane amounts of terminals. You don't think a $60 Million fine would be enough of a incentive to fix things?

And honestly, you have never gotten a messed up credit card bill?

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 14, 1998.


# # # 19981114SAT

TODAY:

o There are some ~146,000 credit card _merchants globally.

o Farmer Jack AND A&P ( large USA grocery chains ) cannot/willnot accept ANY credit cards with expiry past 12-99

o My father-in-law, visiting from another state, is unable to use his VISA cards at the abovementioned establishments. ( They hate out- of-state checks; have to accept them, though. )

New cards issued with expiry in/after "00" come with a ( small print ) notice to the cardholder to report merchants unable to accept their card to an 800 number. No one ever does this -- do they?

Furthermore, the merchant is supposed to call for verbal authorization when these events occur. Merchants don't do this either -- can't have that much staff time tied up on the telephone.

Banks are Y2K-toast -- if there's electricity to toast them. ( LOL! ) Credit cards are Y2K-toast, too! ( Watch what happens, too, when the Euro kicks in, 01/99! What a cluster! )

The anecdote about letters to merchants from credit card companies is blatantly UNTRUE and, as with the USA judicial system, without TEETH. Thw PR disaster these enterprises would bring around their ears would be the final nail in the global economy collapse. ( You don't have to be a "Yardeni" to see that! What a Y2K-lackey Yardeni's turned out to be! )

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), November 14, 1998.


"The anecdote about letters to merchants from credit card companies is blatantly UNTRUE"

Gee Bob, if I didn't know better, I would say you just called me a liar. While I admit I do not have the letter in my hands (and I don't think my friend has it anymore, but I will ask him) I would like to know where you get your information from that it is untrue.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 14, 1998.


Uh, Rick......better re-read the original post.

It didn't refer to transactions between merchants and their banks........it refered to global transactions, between banks located all over the world and VISA (or MC, or Discover, or AMEX)

Let's say a US citizen makes a purchase in Timbuctoo. The merchant accepts the card, gives the guy the item, and everyone's fine. Until the transaction gets screwed up passing through different computers, in different countries on the way to VISA and thence to the bank issuing the credit card, and thence to the buyer's account. At least one of these international transactions must factor in currency exchange -- so the merchant is paid in Timbuctoo credit and the buyer is billed in USD.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Walmart swipe process. Let's assume that domestic transactions are handled correctly by then.

It has a lot to do with the viability of the credit card company if it doesn't operate, without garbaged international transactions, after 2000-01-01.

This is a lot deeper than just whether or not my 01/01 expiration date card gets accepted. And, yes, maybe the buyer can get his account straightened out sometime after several months effort. That's not the point of the post, either. The point is that the credit card company might well end up with millions of transactions that have inaccurate data. They may eventually straighten them all out, after years of trying.....using merchant and buyer copies of the transaction and handcranking backdated exchange rates, and spending a lot of time and effort and money on each - supposed to have been automatic - transaction. They may well do this, if they haven't gone under first.

IMHO it's dodging the issue to talk about straightening things out post facto (which is what your remark about having had a problem before implies) If a problem exists it won't cause one bad transaction, but may well overwhelm the company in which the problem exists. Fix on failure will toast the credit card company that tries it because the expenditure of resources fixing the results of that failure will be astronomical.

-- rocky (rknolls@hotmail.com), November 14, 1998.


.

-- a (a@a.a), November 14, 1998.


..3rd times the charm

-- b (b@b.b), November 14, 1998.

Andy, Thanks for the post. Keep in touch here.

We have mentioned WalMart several times. Their fiscal year 2000 starts on 2/1/99. Any thoughts on what might happen then? Will this cause problems with their famous Just in time Inventory system? Any WalMarters lurking out there?

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), November 14, 1998.


"99% is not good enough. It must be 100%" - former mainframe programmer Alan Greenspan on why the world financial system must be totally Y2K compliant.

"Fix on failure will toast the credit card company that tries it because the expenditure of resources fixing the results of that failure will be astronomical." - Rocky Knolls...good point rocky!

-- a (a@a.a), November 14, 1998.


Rocky,

I was not addressing the original post. This thread just seemed as good a place to interject this comment as anywhere. Is something I have wanted to say for awhile and this seemed like as good a place as any.

Me:"And honestly, you have never gotten a messed up credit card bill?"

Rocky:"IMHO it's dodging the issue to talk about straightening things out post facto (which is what your remark about having had a problem before implies)"

It was late and it was a very lame attempt at humor Rocky. I can see why you took it seriouslly, I didn't put anything to qualify it as a joke, but that truly was the intent. Even I would never be so naive as to say "Just fix it after its happened". Sorry the joke failed so badly...my bad.

Rick *Rick's new mental rule...no posting after 3 AM...it fails..it fails BIG time*

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 14, 1998.


Rick and Co.,

Great points made - I was on duty when these first 2000/2001 expiry date cards started declining en masse all over the world a coupl'a years ago. TSHTF:-) It was not a pleasant experience, but it was an eye-opener:-) Actually, there was plenty of pizza floating around, and "managers" appearing out of the woodwork that you usually only saw collapsing at the annual Xmas disco/line dance before we got all PC two years ago...:-)

We patched our systems one by one (4 around the world that have to be in-synch at all times naturally - ooooh, another problem), touch and go for a couple of days, when suddenly, lo and behold, two weeks later a directive went out from the muckety-mucks (love that word!) to all 100,000 members that they must get their acts together (code) or suffer the consequences (fines!).

Slapped wrists and nether regions all around!

Granted, most have complied by now. But don't bet on *full* compliance. Those that have complied come y2k will have unknown and incalculable factors affecting the data being transmitted. *If* it can be transmitted.

Liken it to a systemic virus if you will. We are talking about the likes of Russia, Iran, Iraq, all of Europe (also coping with the Euro), Japan in meltdown, Asia, South America, and, yes, Arkansas - most not particularly renowned for dynamic forward technological remedial first aid. No offense to Arkansas implied but I keep thinking of the Clintstones, Mena, and all those lines of coke - eh Bill? Bill, leave 'er alone for a minute will ya? What is it with you and canines anyway?:-)

Ask yourself just *one* crucially important question. Why the hell did Visa issue x million credit cards (via the issuing banks) to umpteen banks worldwide with expiry dates of 2000-2001 when the software, be it at Visa, the Banks or POS (point of sale) terminals could not handle it?

Does this give you pause for confidence in the ability of these institutions to organise a piss-up in a brewery? Not even the issuing banks had a clue that things were gonna fail. And they issued the cards; And they know how there own code works (Ha!)- don't they? Spot the brain cells...

Part of my last job at Visa was manual cleanup of disputed transactions on a worldwide basis. I would use a bunch of powerful tools to do this. The most useful would usually be a logprint of the total transaction flow. A typical transaction could be bounced all over the world several times and still get screwed up somewhere along the way. This is not pretty. And before I left it was getting worse and worse. Too much faulty code being introduced now in the never- ending desire to "improve" the service. Now these problem transactions are usually in the order of hundreds individually. Come any Jo Anne effect y2k related problems from 1/1/99 onwards these could be in the magnitude of millions. Come 1/1/00 they will be in the order of magnitude of ??? insert number here ??? *If* the systems are still functioning - which I doubt.

Somebody also mentioned triage or workarounds (Paul) - i.e. cutting off mainframe to mainframe discourse from the USA to/from certain countries...logical idea and valid... but not in this lifetime. Who's gonna make the decisions, who will be the central point, who will swallow the legal implications...? Good idea, proposed before, but in the time frame and with the "leadership" we have now, unworkable. The very thought of this would collapse the world banking system...

Tom - WTSHTF it's too late;-) as a seasoned mercenary:-))) plying my trade around the world I *know* when the writing is on the wall, as do most (OK some, the rest are greedy bastards) of my buddies. I just had 4 months ago a contract to go in and set up a new reservations system for Aeroflot - Sabre/AA software - funded by the G7/IMF etc., etc., brand new data centre in Moscow, 50 Russians been learning English for the last year, ready and waiting to be trained up etc., etc., and what happens ?----- the plug is pulled right at the last minute... this is a project that has been on the back-burner for the last seven or eight years --- you do *not* ignore signs like this. You network and talk to people and you make a plan.

And lastly to Rick - come y2k I think most of those 100,000 banks worldwide would be only too grateful to have the ability to interact with the rest of the banking community via Visa/MasterCard/SWIFT etc. - but with the problems that I envision impacting each and every one of those entities on all the continents and islands of the earth *at the same time*, I cannot logically see how this is going to transpire.

Think GLOBALLY - think of the impacts, think SYSTEMIC problems, think *INTERCONNECTIVITY* (for this will be the Achilles heel), think "I had better get my arse in gear, pronto!", all rather depressing I know. I got over (possibly/maybe) _that_ six months ago... 412 days to go...

All the best, Andy

P.S. Hey, those 3 years in Saudi, I brew a mean beer - my new trade???

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 14, 1998.



I put my "Visa is toast" post on a more technical BB (comp software year 2000 )to see what other programmers thought of my logic. I will post their answers below - one chap thought I was wrong and explained why, and two others weighed in on my side with explanations from their own perspective of just exactly why I am right (unfortunately for us all...)

Response #1 On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:46:48 -0800, "Andrew Rowland" wrote:

>The consequences will be catastrophic in my opinion - unless I'm >missing something, maybe my logic is faulty?

Yes, your logic is faulty, in the following paragraph:

>The vast majority of these banks will in no way be compliant. Therefore they >will be sending Visa bad data, our "compliant" Visa programmes will route or >modify this data according to the programme specifications, but the >routed/modified data will in many/most cases by inaccurate/corrupt. Assuming >it gets delivered to the next entity in a corrupt state, that next entity >that may or may not be compliant will in turn route or modify the data. The >result of this scenario, in my humble opinion, will be total, worldwide, >chaos in the banking community.

If company A is non-compliant and sends compliant company B non-compliant data, then B will simply reject the non-compliant data. This has worked for the last 40 years of data transfer between computers, and I expect that it will remain in force until at least 1/1/2000 - or do you know of some reason why Visa (or any other company) would start accepting "bad" data?

This is the misguided, unsupported Gary North idea of "corrupt" data spewing forth from computers on 1/1/2000, and "corrupting" computers that the data is transferred to. Anyone who has worked with communicating computers knows better and realizes that both the transferring and receiving machines have agreed on the data edit rules in advance, and I'm surprised that Andrew here feels otherwise.

I think everyone here would be surprised at how much data already moves across the data transfer wires that includes fully compliant dates that are well into the next century (think bonds and mortgage transactions as an example, and there are many more examples). These communication vehicles are already Y2K compliant.

If I remember correctly, the charge card companies are having the majority of their problems with POS (and hence will be concentrating tests in that area in 1999), and not with the bank-to-card-company data transfer mechanism per se. I am not suggesting that there are not compiance steps and tests to be carried out in the data transfer area, but these are not felt to be as problematic, and can be easily overcome if all participants adhere to standards.

Regards, DS

This was from Don Scott

On the next two posts you will see how Don has not quite grasped what I was trying to explain.......

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 14, 1998.


This is from Jack ShitAnanda!!!

Don Scott wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:46:48 -0800, "Andrew Rowland" > wrote: > > If company A is non-compliant and sends compliant company B > non-compliant data, then B will simply reject the non-compliant data. > This has worked for the last 40 years of data transfer between > computers, and I expect that it will remain in force until at least > 1/1/2000 - or do you know of some reason why Visa (or any other > company) would start accepting "bad" data? >

One good reason why bad data *will* be received is that it won't be bad in the sense you are talking about (scrambled - garbage). It might just be inflated or deflated numbers, a product of faulty calculations. No interface program is going to do validity checking like that. That would presume one knew the range of the numbers coming in before they came in.

> This is the misguided, unsupported Gary North idea of "corrupt" data

See, you are calling invalid data corrupt data. Corrupt is corrupt. Invalid can be either corrupt or deceptively out of range.

Even corruption will be received, though, in some (maybe many) cases. That is because the interfaces (between bankA and bankB) are going to be buggy. IMO, the interfaces will be the last piece of the puzzle to get tested ..... way too late.

I've done interface testing and the number of "surprise" failure conditions that arise when interfaces change is astounding. There is no way to quantify it or explain it to somebody that has not done the testing of interfaces. They are quirky at best - total wild animals on their worst days. And 00 will bring in their worst days.

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 14, 1998.


And finally this is the response from NorWester.... By the way Paul Milne is a bit like a more extreme Gary North, a real TEOTWAWKI merchant.......

Don Scott wrote in message <364d81d9.73051905@news.nbnet.nb.ca>... >On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:46:48 -0800, "Andrew Rowland" > wrote:

>If company A is non-compliant and sends compliant company B >non-compliant data, then B will simply reject the non-compliant data. >This has worked for the last 40 years of data transfer between >computers, and I expect that it will remain in force until at least >1/1/2000 - or do you know of some reason why Visa (or any other >company) would start accepting "bad" data? > >This is the If company A is non-compliant and sends compliant company B non-compliant data, then B will simply reject the non-compliant data. This has worked for the last 40 years of data transfer between computers, and I expect that it will remain in force until at least 1/1/2000 - or do you know of some reason why Visa (or any other company) would start accepting "bad" data?

This is the misguided, unsupported Gary North idea of "corrupt" data spewing forth from computers on 1/1/2000, and "corrupting" computers that the data is transferred to. Anyone who has worked with communicating computers knows better and realizes that both the transferring and receiving machines have agreed on the data edit rules in advance, and I'm surprised that Andrew here feels otherwise. Anyone who has worked with >communicating computers knows better and realizes that both the >transferring and receiving machines have agreed on the data edit rules >in advance, and I'm surprised that Andrew here feels otherwise.

Hmm. I work with "communicating computers" and must say that Andrew is precisely right. Date-dependant calculations have nothing to do with data-interchange validations routines. What Andrew is pointing out is that non- complient programs will produce data that is wrongly calculated; these errors will spread magnitudianlly throughout the global financial system. Validation routines between data interchanges simply verify that the parameters are correct: not the calculations forming the data. This is the meaning of corrupt data: bad information, not bad parameters. Andrew (and Gary North) are precisely correct. You are espousing the "misguided, unsupported idea of "corrupt" data " equalling bad parameter transfers. That is incorrect and a straw dummy. Corrupt data = data correctly parametered yet wrongly calculated. Wrong calculations beget wrong calculations ad nauseum. Within 24 hours of the turnover, the Global Finacial System will either A)be completely corrupt B)be completely shut down so as to avoid A. The result is the same in either case; even if we don't go Milne, you are going to see a mess bigger than you can imagine. Alan Greenspan was entirely correct when he stated that 99% is not good enough. We will be nowhere close--not even in the ballpark. The engines have shutdown; the plane is falling--we simply haven't hit the ground yet. Scoff if you must; as a professional working with professionals, I know the score. It's going down. This is why at least 61% of IT professionals are pulling their money out before it hits--of course, in 10 or 11 months, that number will rise to 100%; but then, it will be to late. We know for a fact that that 50% of all businesses in this, the best prepared of countries, will not perform real-time testing. As a Programmer/Test Engineer, I can therefore assure you that at least 50% of all businesses in this, the best prepared of countries, are going to experience mission-critical failures, Gartners new optimistic spin not withstanding. Remediation sans testing is not remediation. The code will still be broken, just in new and unknown ways.

Got wheat?

Bryan

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 14, 1998.


And one more for a little levity from Lane Core jr.

>If company A is non-compliant and sends compliant company B >non-compliant data, then B will simply reject the non-compliant data. >This has worked for the last 40 years of data transfer between >computers, and I expect that it will remain in force until at least >1/1/2000 - or do you know of some reason why Visa (or any other >company) would start accepting "bad" data?

Conversation at Company B when B simply rejects the non-comliant data:

Helen: "Hey, Mabel. Do you have any orders to process?" Mabel: "No, Helen. I don't have any orders." Helen: "Let me call MIS and see what's up."

....

Helen: "The EDI programs have been rejecting all the orders from our three largest customers. Something about non-compliant data...." Mabel: "When are they going to get it fixed?" Helen: "They don't know when. Our customers are blaming us and we're blaming our customers...."

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 14, 1998.


Rick,

My apologies. I read it as if you were simply making light of the whole process.

-- rocky (rknolls@hotmail.com), November 14, 1998.


This is Don'e rebuttal of the logic explained above, together with my replies.

>Where is this notion of wrong calculations coming from?

Visa and the member banks make complicated currency conversion calculations in the trillions every day. These will be the Achilles heel.

>The "amount" of a financial transaction is typically not "calculated" >- it just "is". If I lay down a charge card for a $49.95 purchase - >the amount is not "calculated" and then sent to Visa - it just "is" >$49.95.

Unless you are in Timbuktu.

That's where the interconnecting banks with their currency conversion programs come into play.

>And to top it all off, the Visa machine has to echo back to me the >amount that I agree to pay for - if there is some "miscalculation" >(sic) or mis-transmission of the amount (and what would 1/1/2000 have >to do with that?), then I will simply not agree to authorize that >other amount.

Precisely. There will be a magnitude of "declines" in the trillions, ergo the collapse of the Banking System.

>As far as machines higher up in the chain (e.g., merchant banks >sending batches of transactions to Visa, or whatever), I still fail to >see how non-compliant programs will calculate data incorrectly. > >Can anyone give a real-life example? From your own experience? > >Regards, >Don Scott >

Is my logic faulty?

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 14, 1998.


Don Scott wrote in message <364e0939.107713744@news.nbnet.nb.ca>... >On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:18:57 -0800, "Andrew Rowland" > wrote: > >> >> >>>Where is this notion of wrong calculations coming from? >> >> >>Visa and the member banks make complicated currency conversion calculations >>in the trillions every day. These will be the Achilles heel. > >Oh, in the trillions every day, is it? I would never have guessed it >would be that high. Especially when you consider that you are >subsetting it to currency conversion transactions, only. > >But, if there are trillions of currency conversion transactions every >day, then so be it. > >I guess I was wrong to question your wisdom in these matters. > >DS

No Don, you are not wrong per se with compliant US Banks submitting US Dollars to compliant Visa programmes, it's the other 140,000 endpoints that feed into Visa/Mastercard/Amex/SWIFT etc. that will be the problem. Who precisely knows what they will be submitting - the data fields may synch up ok but is the data valid?

Best Regards, Andy

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 14, 1998.


Rocky,

No sweat. I easily see where you got me making light of the whole thing from my post.:)

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 14, 1998.


In light of the references to Gary North's position on non-compliant data infecting other computers, the following is the text of an e-mail I sent to Gary North on July 27, which I believe he subsequently archived in his database, on the topic of how compliant computers can be corrupted by non-compliant data.

>>>>>>>>

I have been a computer programmer since 1961, and programmed in at least 15 languages for mainframes and personal computers.

Several respondents, including Bill Moquin on July 27, have challenged your statement that non-compliant data can infect a Y2k compliant computer. However, their reasoning always seems to be that the non- compliant data would appear in the form of a date that will be edited by the receiving computer and found to be erroneous and thus rejected.

They are failing to consider that the non-compliant data may be in the form of the result of date arithmetic done on a non-compliant computer and an erroneous answer that appears to be compliant transmitted to the compliant computer.

For example, if a non-compliant system determines in error that some payment should be made or some product should be shipped, and forwards that information to a Y2k compliant computer system in error, the receiving system (bank?) may merely edit for accurate account number, valid amount, valid item number, etc, and perform debits and credits of the amount or issue a shipping manifest, thus compounding the error. The compliant receiving system would thus have participated in an erroneous, non-compliant transaction, and its accounts would not be correct.

Dan Hunt <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

-- Dan Hunt (dhunt@hostscorp.com), November 16, 1998.


Hello Andy, know anything about AMEX's y2k effort through the grapevine, I was working on the projectly briefly in 1997, they were just starting at that stage, not sure how they're getting on now. Must have similar problems to VISA, virtually the same type of operation.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), November 17, 1998.

My understanding, from god-knows-where was that they were not issuing past cards 12/99 until they were globally compliant. I understood that up to about June or July there were only 30 post 12/99 expiry cards and they were in the hands of specific employees who were doing a LOT of world traveling. I understand that they decided that they were compliant and started issuing the cards in August.

I could also be all wet.

as whoever it is says:

Your mileage may vary....

Chuck

-- Chuck a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 17, 1998.


Thanks the acceptance of the cards is one visible part of the problem, obviously the AMEX charge capture and billing systems have to be compliant world-wide.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), November 17, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ