-- There's a thread below called "It's official - the federal Y2K media coverup is being planned." Well, check this out. This is WHY "they" are planning on blocking as much of this information as possible.

Let's face it, there is no such thing as "Free Enterprise." The myth of "Market Forces" is just that, a myth. It's all about power and control. "They" are NOT going to let "Reality" cause a loosening of their grip on the levers of power. The first paragraph really says it all, but I included the whole thing:

href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/27year.html">http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/27year.html

January 27, 1999

Group Rethinks Publicly Rating 30 Nations' Year 2000 Readiness

By BARNABY J. FEDER

Fearing that they might inadvertently cause a flight of capital and destabilize some large developing countries, a group of international banks, securities companies and insurers is weighing a retreat from plans to publicly rate the readiness of more than 30 nations to avoid major Year 2000 computer disruptions.

Global 2000 Coordinating Group, which includes more than 230 institutions from 46 countries, announced its ratings plan at a United Nations conference in New York last month with a promise to publish its findings early in February. Countries exhibiting "satisfactory" progress and disclosure would be rated green; those somewhat lacking in either category, yellow; those in trouble, red, and those not providing enough information, black.

The Year 2000 problem, or Y2K for short, is the inability of some computers and electronic machinery to correctly read dates after Dec. 31, 1999. Such devices can malfunction by freezing or by spewing out incorrect data.

Other groups are already providing country ratings, most notably the Gartner Group, a consulting firm based in Stamford, Conn., that grades 87 countries. But the Global 2000 effort raised concerns because of the worldwide financial influence of its members. The group's access to central banks, national telephone and power companies and other major institutions in the countries rated might give the ratings extraordinary credibility.

Global 2000 members said last month that the report should impel countries that had been lagging in Year 2000 efforts to work harder and put pressure on all countries to make more information about their progress public. Year 2000 consultants had called the planned publicity a valuable alert and praised the group as setting an example of cooperative information-sharing for the public good.

Immediately after the announcement, though, critics began suggesting that the financial group's ratings might create more problems than benefits. That set off an internal debate that could be resolved in a private meeting that begins in London today.

"I, and a lot of other members, can see both sides of the argument," said James Devlin, the Citibank delegate to Global 2000 who has headed the working group of institutions that developed the rating system and the plans to publish it.

Bankers familiar with the debate said that Federal regulators and some major banks had raised concerns about capital flight, especially from Latin America.

Some banks questioned whether publicizing the ratings might bog the group down in lawsuits because the United States is the only country with a law protecting those issuing good-faith readiness assessments. And officials in countries with bad ratings might be discouraged from sharing accurate information.

Some also argued that the ratings pushed the financial companies too far from Global 2000's main focus, which is encouraging cooperative efforts to make sure that the financial sector faces minimal disruptions. The group also develops model tests for banks to follow in assessing their own Y2K progress, for example.

But those who favor publication are not giving up easily.

"Some people think publicity will create panic," said J. P. Rangaswami, a Global 2000 steering committee member from Dresdner Kleinwort Benson, the investment banking arm of Germany's Dresdner Bank. "Others, including me, think publicity will create action that reduces panic. Once we use our collective leverage to gather information, we have a duty to make it public."

Another backer of issuing ratings, Robert Aylward of the Royal Bank of Canada, said the issue was not whether the assessments were perfect but whether they would create more opportunities for dialogue.

Susan Jarrett, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's representative on the working group headed by Mr. Devlin, agreed, saying: "The best reaction we could hope for is for people to dispute it. We got more documentation than ever before when countries found out that they were rated red."

Global 2000 members said that virtually all the material used in the ratings had been gathered from public sources, although some was from meetings in foreign countries that may not have been widely publicized.

Proposed ratings for each country have been shared with the respective national Y2K coordinator. As of this week, no more than a handful of national coordinators had objected to the accuracy of the proposed ratings, according to a banker involved in the research.

The ratings are not intended to be more than a snapshot of Year 2000 readiness in key countries. In general, Global 2000 does not intend to predict how far countries will get in their repair programs. But the group has bluntly warned on its Web site (www.global2k.com) that Russia will not solve its Year 2000 problems in time.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 27, 1999

Answers

Sorry, I screwed up the hotlink:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/ articles/27year.html

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 27, 1999.

and people say Milne distorts the truth...Just goes to show you.

-- a (a@a.a), January 27, 1999.

pshannon,

"The best reaction we could hope for is for people to dispute it. We got more documentation than ever before when countries found out that they were rated red."

Open dialog can work, if they let it.

Global 2000 members said that virtually all the material used in the ratings had been gathered from public sources, although some was from meetings in foreign countries that may not have been widely publicized.

NOTE: virtually all the material used ... had been gathered from public sources ... some was from meetings ... may not have been widely publicized.

So, again public domain info gathering. That wont change, and it gives information navigators an edge in digging up the ever shifting truth.

When reading a post on the Presidents Council for Year 2000 Conversion (thread GAO: Link To Willemssen Testimony) under the section ...

Additional Actions That Could Be Considered By the Presidents Council on Key Sectors

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000QXM

... If the current approach of using associations to voluntarily collect information does not yield the necessary information, the Council may wish to consider whether legislative remedies (such as requiring disclosure of Year 2000 readiness data) should be proposed.

To encourage the reporting of more complete information, the Council should consider requesting that the national associations publicly disclose, at a minimum, those companies that have responded to surveys. ...

I repeat ... It looks like this means that ... THE GOVERNMENTS Y2K INDUSTRY ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION RESPONSES. Rather than directly from companies themselves.

Again, public domain information sources used to rate Y2K readiness or compliance or not.

This, was NOT good news on the part of our government info gathering body. In other words, we and they, are assuming they have good and accurate data that they will place a P.R. spin on. Sounds to me, like they are running semi-blind too.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 27, 1999.

"As of this week, no more than a handful of national coordinators had objected to the accuracy of the proposed ratings, according to a banker involved in the research."

"But the Global 2000 effort raised concerns because of the worldwide financial influence of its members. The group's access to central banks, national telephone and power companies and other major institutions in the countries rated might give the ratings extraordinary credibility."

Not many disagree with the accuracy of the ratings, but they don't want them to be public because they might actually have some CREDIBILITY!

In other words, they don't want us to find out the TRUTH!!!

-- (@@@.@), January 27, 1999.

Related and very nuch worth reading:

http://y2ktimebomb.com/DSA/VP/vp9904.htm Wall Street & Y2K By Victor Porlier January 27, 1999 An important conference called the "Year 2000 Systemic Risk in Financial Institutions and Markets: Contingency Plans and Risk Management" took place in Manhattan last week. As you might well expect with a title like this, it was not a conference for the faint of heart nor the casually curious about Y2K. Participants - high level Y2K remediators and top managers from banking, securities, and insurance industries - take Y2K very seriously.

Although no presentation was a disappointment, there was good and the not so good news.

*endsnip*

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), January 27, 1999.

Diane, I suspect that part of the plan to give "security clearance" to top infrastructure and company CEO's is to get a clearer picture of y2K as well as plan counter-cyberterrorism. Anything the CEO's would disclose would remain classified. What do you think?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 27, 1999.