My bank's computer's "down" today ... Y2K-avoidance ...

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

# # # 19981229

Date: Monday, December 28, 1998

Duration: Teller: _would not disclose on inquiry_.

Cause: Teller: _would not disclose on inquiry_.

My Bank: NBD ( National Bank of Detroit ); Bought-out by FirstChicago ( FC ); New name: FC-NBD Bought-out by ??? ...

Character: Ugly!

I plan to "visit" ( inspect ) my bank every day to determine a higher level perspective on their Y2K implementation. Some banks won't be ready! These should be clearly identified and branded!!

This thread to "monitor" (sample) bank industry Y2K implementations this week and into the future.

Anecdotes re face-to-face inquiries might prove enlightening and entertaining: good; bad; and ugly!

Let's put the "shoe" on the othe foot by setting up our very own "Know Your Banker" ( KYB ) program! Could be "scarey" fun.

Poetic justice: Imposing tyranny upon the tyrants!

Jefferson had respectable advice re tyrants ... Take heed!!

Let's Y2K sock it too 'em!! ...

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), December 29, 1998

Answers

As usual, only playing devil's advocate, not trying to attack you personally Bob.

"Duration: Teller: _would not disclose on inquiry_.

Cause: Teller: _would not disclose on inquiry_."

What exactly did you ask her? How was it worded? What was her exact answer? This is espically important on cause. Did she say "I can't tell you" or did she say "I have no idea" or "They haven't told us?" or something else. There is a world of difference.

"Character: Ugly! "

While this is certainly no excuse, but did you take into account how many people had already probably been nasty with her?

"I plan to "visit" ( inspect ) my bank every day to determine a higher level perspective on their Y2K implementation."

How do you plan on doing this? Unless you expect their code first hand, a daily visit is just going to gt you branded as an annoyance by management. There is nothing wrong with wanting to find out how your bank is doing, but don't you think daily "visits" (whatever that means) might be a little extreme?

"Some banks won't be ready! These should be clearly identified and branded!! "

Need to take that one up with the FDIC

"Poetic justice: Imposing tyranny upon the tyrants! "

Tyranny would imply you were FORCED to put your money into a bank. You can always keep it on hand if you wish, not wise, but you can do it. You don't have to pay things with a check, you can always go to the post office and get a money order as needed.

Bob, I really do NOT have anything against you, and I am most assuradly a GI, but I do try to make sure people realize there are two sides to every story.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), December 29, 1998.


Bob hasn't realized that you get more with honey than you do with vinegar.

-- maria (anon@ymous.com), December 29, 1998.

Maria,

Good point about honey and vinegar. The only way to get good Y2K information is to play dumb and be as sweet as pie. This has worked for me many times.

Hugger

-- Anti-Chainsaw (Tree@hugger.com), December 29, 1998.


Rick,

I understood Bob's reference to tyranny in light of the "Know Your Customer" program. You may be a GI overall.....but not regarding this post.

-- (cujo@baddog.com), December 29, 1998.


Even the tyranny of "Know Your Customer" implies that someone forces you to use a bank so that they can "Know Your Customer". I have known a lot of people who have never had a single penny in a bank and gotten along just fine in life. Tyranny implies that they dictate to you what you do and how you do it. Until the day every citizen is forced to have a bank account, banking and "Know Your Customer" or really not a tyranny.

I certainly am not defending KYC, I think it's about the idiotic thing I have ever heard of. What I am saying is that Bob made a poor choice in words.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), December 29, 1998.



# # # 19981229

Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com):

Your post reeks of someone with seriously big stakes in preserving the status quo. ( Would that be at any intellectual cost?

> What exactly did you ask her? How was it worded? What was her exact > answer? This is espically important on cause. Did she say "I can't > tell you" or did she say "I have no idea" or "They haven't told > us?" or something else. There is a world of difference.

Backgrounder: I overheard a teller tell customer the "computers are down."

(Me) Customer: "New Year 2000 system creating havoc?" Teller: "Hrumph!" ( Leeringly. )

(Me) Customer: "How long have they been down?" Teller: "Hrumph!" ( With "daggers." )

I kid you, NOT! I dropped further inquiry. Had I not been in a personal time crunch, I would have pursued the matter with a branch manager.

The hrumph's could have been loosely interpreted as acknowledging affirmatives--if you know what I mean. I had only body language to hang that interpretation on; giving her the benefit of the doubt! **** Her attitude? Tellers are customer service specialists. I have never experienced such non-verbal responses from a bank teller; very odd. I can assure that _the tellers were under duress to get customers through the window as fast as possible. **** I am a, self-imposed, Y2K-retired IT professional of 33+ years, Rick! As a matter of fact, Rick, I _could indeed inspect their code-- _IF THEY WERE TO PERMIT SUCH A VIOLATION OF PROPRIETARY MATTERS. Don't be ridiculously absurd, Rick! It betrays you.

I have nothing _but time for preparations and "annoying" every business/service that I am currently in a customer-based relationship with, about their Year 2000 "readiness." I _will "annoy" them for the pure joy of determining how long they can squirm--without calling for my arrest, of course. Why not? **** Many banks _will not be ready_! Confirming the obvious! The fact is, Rick, banks are supposed to have their systems "completed" this Friday, December 31, 1998. Do _you _know _what _that _means, Rick? I do! That means remediated systems are required to be "IMPLEMENTED IN PRODUCTION."

I turned down a Year 2000 testing project management postion at ( up to ) $150/hr; this desperate bank tried three ( 3 ) times in the SAME WEEK, before accepting my "No!" Basis for my declining:

1.) Bank was a "buy-out victim" of a foreign-owned bank. 2.) New owners forced this bank to scrap their ( almost complete! ) Y2K remediations. 3.) New owners forced a foreign, NON-Y2K compliant system and platform on acquired bank. 4.) Acquired bank, directed by parent bank, to remediate the new system. 5.) Acquired bank, exponentially compounded the effort by incorporating functional specification changes of a system their staff did not know. 6.) Parent bank directed acquired bank to an off-shore remediation arrangement. 7.) Parent bank directed acquired bank to use an untested, Y2K test scripting environment their staff had no experience and/or training on. 8.) Project manager candidate for their 4-month project would be trained by scripting tool vendor--becoming lone, in-house "expert." 9.) In a 2-week crunch, plan and train in-house and external consulting staff for the test script composition and prove-out on the sight-unseen, remediated system consisting of some 4,000 integrated COBOL modules, of unknown LOC. 10.) Test and move 40 modules, per day ( on average ), of system into production ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1998.

Anyone else perceive insurmountable problems with these immutable "givens?" I am not one to decline a bona fide challenge; I thrive on them. However, I know a "dead horse" when I sees one.

This prospect was/is _less _than a hands down, sure fire prescription for disaster from the git-go!

I dare say that, even Ed Yourdon might concur with the "wisdom" of my assessment, based on this conversationally conveyed information. The reality of the situation would have been worse! It always is, from my experience. The prospective client only conveys a good news version of the predicament they expect to be saved from. My "walk on water" papers were never approved, Rick. **** > Tyranny would imply you were FORCED to put your money into a bank. > You can always keep it on hand if you wish, not wise, but you can > do it. You don't have to pay things with a check, you can always go > to the post office and get a money order as needed.

As a matter of fact we may be on the BIG BROTHER road to: FORCED deposit of ALL "LEGITIMATE" PAYROLLS; cash on hand ( possession ) restrictions; conforming money order restrictions to comport with cash on hand restrictions.

And you think you live in a Constitutional-based republic. Dreamer! [ Ref. "Homework" assignments I e-mailed to you, Rick. ;-) ] **** > Bob, I really do NOT have anything against you, and I am most > assuradly a GI, but I do try to make sure people realize there are > two sides to every story.

Nor I, against you, Rick! I've tried to stick to addressing the issues in your query.

The Y2K story is different, Rick. It's going to be a story about defective computer code in silicone that cares not one wit about what you, politicians, pundits or I think or feel. All the "spin" in the world will not change the destructive course before computerized societies of humanity.

...

I guess that about addresses your concerns, Rick.

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), December 29, 1998.


Bob,

Change banks, for now.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 29, 1998.


# # # 19981229

Maria, Anti-Chainsaw, Rick:

Your oversight: "It's the calendar, stupid!"

We are WAY PAST THE HONEY, SUGAR, OR VINEGAR HORIZON!

Computerized civilizations are slowly approaching the surface of a sea of "hydroflouric acid" ( Y2K ) that will "dissolve" our silicone infrastructure.

It's "Chainsaw Time," baby!

Take no prisoners that you can't feed pre/post-Y2K!

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), December 29, 1998.


"Your post reeks of someone with seriously big stakes in preserving the status quo. ( Would that be at any intellectual cost? "

Not sure how you arrived at that, but sure. I would like to at least see deaths and the such from Y2K minimized. I really don't have feelings on banks one way or the other. What I simply asking you for was more supporting info. Letting us know your personal conclusions are fine, I just like to know what led you to those conclusions.

"Backgrounder: I overheard a teller tell customer the "computers are down."

(Me) Customer: "New Year 2000 system creating havoc?" Teller: "Hrumph!" ( Leeringly. )

(Me) Customer: "How long have they been down?" Teller: "Hrumph!" ( With "daggers." )

I kid you, NOT! I dropped further inquiry. Had I not been in a personal time crunch, I would have pursued the matter with a branch manager. "

This is exactly what I was looking for. It now gives me a context to view your comments in and your conclusions fit.

Me:"How do you plan on doing this? Unless you expect their code first hand, a daily visit is just going to gt you branded as an annoyance by management."

Bob:"As a matter of fact, Rick, I _could indeed inspect their code-- _IF THEY WERE TO PERMIT SUCH A VIOLATION OF PROPRIETARY MATTERS. Don't be ridiculously absurd, Rick! It betrays you. "

Bob, I can see how you got what you did from what I wrote, I will be the first to admit I have a unique writing style. When I mentioned inspecting their code it was in the sense of "Short of inspecting their code, how would you ever know what they are doing?". I know code is proprietary and I was not trying to question your skills at all, what I was interested in was how do you judge their progress wihtout the code. Like I said though, I understand how you came to the conclusion you did from what I wrote.

"I have nothing _but time for preparations and "annoying" every business/service that I am currently in a customer-based relationship with, about their Year 2000 "readiness." I _will "annoy" them for the pure joy of determining how long they can squirm--without calling for my arrest, of course. Why not?"

Personal choice I guess. I know what is at stake here, but I also know there are some innocent folks at there who are getting yelled at when not necessary. Would not be my personal choice to annoy people for fun, but like I said, personal choice. (I also still have to work to afford my preparations)

"**** Many banks _will not be ready_! Confirming the obvious! The fact is, Rick, banks are supposed to have their systems "completed" this Friday, December 31, 1998. Do _you _know _what _that _means, Rick? I do! That means remediated systems are required to be "IMPLEMENTED IN PRODUCTION."

Didn't know that was being discussed, but yes I agree with the definition.

"As a matter of fact we may be on the BIG BROTHER road to: FORCED deposit of ALL "LEGITIMATE" PAYROLLS; cash on hand ( possession ) restrictions; conforming money order restrictions to comport with cash on hand restrictions. "

I will admit to having never heard about forced deposits. I have read up a lot on banking lately (even prior to your "homework") and have not heard this mentioned.

"And you think you live in a Constitutional-based republic. Dreamer! [ Ref. "Homework" assignments I e-mailed to you, Rick. ;-) ] ****"

Well not really an argument I wish to get into yet again on this board. But yes I read all the "homework" you sent. While I had not read those precise articles, I had read one's very similar. I do keep up with current events:)

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), December 31, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ