Y2K - Programmers 11
Times More Likely To
Buy Food Supplies Than
General Public
The Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM Daily Report
http://www.y2knewswire.com
6-14-99
"We're professional liars. We're not telling our bosses how bad it is because of how severely we've seen others treated." -- An anonymous Y2K programmer
"Some offices are just now beginning to take Y2K as something worthy of management's attention. ...Of course, we are reporting that we are 'clean and green' - as the politicians require us to report." -- A second anonymous Y2K programmer
"Y2K programmers are now eleven times more likely to purchase food supplies than the general public." -- A mathematical analysis of recent food purchasing trends, investigated and reported by Y2KNEWSWIRE
Y2KNEWSWIRE has acquired significant evidence that Y2K programmers, managers and administrative staff are now ramping up their purchases of Y2K supplies and displaying increasing concern over the continuing cover-up. This two-part report documents this evidence. (You are now reading part 1. Check back with Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM later in the week for part two.)
One of the primary arguments against preparing for Y2K has been this one: if the programmers aren't buying food, the theory goes, they must know something we don't. Therefore, Y2K must be no big deal.
But now, if you follow the same logic, combined with our evidence that programmers are indeed buying more food and becoming increasingly concerned about Y2K, you must reach the same conclusion: they must know something we don't. In fact, they do. What they know -- what they are telling us, is that inside the IT (Information Technology) departments, not only is Y2K not solved, in many cases, upper management is not even aware of the lack of progress. In other cases, upper management is directing Y2K programmers to lie.
We are also learning of reward/punishment systems that are encouraging IT staff to cover up the truth and exaggerate claims of progress. For example, programmers who suggest the organization may not reach full compliance are fired. Programmers who tell company owners and public relations staff what they want to hear are promoted.
THE EVIDENCE
Our evidence comes from multiple sources: the WDCY2K survey, interviews with food companies, interviews with IT staff and from our e-mail tips. As usual, some of the sources are requesting anonymity, and we honor those requests. We remind the readers that this is a well-accepted journalistic approach to acquiring evidence, and it is practiced by every major investigative news magazine and newspaper. How many times has "60 Minutes" filmed a person in shadow? How many times have newspaper journalists used the phrase, "a reputable source" ...? Just last year, IRS employees testified before Congress behind a wall of anonymity. The correct assumption is that without this protection, these people would not speak out. Or worse yet, without this protection, these people fear their careers or livelihoods would be endangered.
Additionally, realize that nearly all claims made by Y2K-optimists are also made anonymously. Even the press conference where a P.R. person claims the organization is "Y2K ready" doesn't offer the names of the IT staff who have documented such a status. Nearly all claims of compliance are made unattached to names of people. Nobody, it seems, is really backing these claims. Have you ever seen a corporate or government press conference where the lead Y2K programmer was paraded in front of the press to announce, "We are compliant and I authenticate it. I am the person in charge and I stand behind my work 100%." ? You haven't seen such a drama unfold for this simple reason: Y2K programmers will not directly lie to the public. That's the job of the public relations people.
EVIDENCE ITEM #1: WDCY2K SURVEY
We not only took a close look at the recent WDCY2K survey, we interviewed Bruce Webster, Co-Chair of the group, for additional clarifications. The survey reveals some startling information about how programmers (and those involved in the remediation of Y2K) think about the Year 2000 problem.
The obvious question with this survey, of course, is this one: isn't the survey a poor representation of the general public? After all, this is a "Y2K group" and these people are already convinced the problem is real, aren't they?
As it turns out, this is not necessarily the case. The WDCY2K group is not a typical "Y2K group." Bruce Webster described the group in these terms: "Yes, there are people who are self-described activists, but by and large they are people that are working on Y2K, and we have a fair number of skeptics. We have Congressional staff members, we have people from the EOP [Executive Office of the President] who come, vice presidents of corporations, and so on. This is a pretty professional group. Yes, we do have people who are community activists who are concerned, so we get a good cross section, but it's not like your typical Y2K community group. These are people who, frankly, have been working professionally on Y2K, in many cases for over four years."
The people participating in this survey, in fact, work in the military, government and Corporate America. They are Y2K consultants, programmers, tool providers, managers and administrative staff. Here's what they had to say...
WHAT THE SURVEY SHOWS
The survey asks respondents about five areas: the economy, business, the infrastructure, society and government. Here's a summary of the results:
* The economy: 1/3 see no impact, 2/3 see a large impact -- from a 20% stock market correction to a collapse of the economy * Business: 57% say business will experience only minor problems, 35% see major Y2K problems across Corporate America, and 9% see major businesses collapsing.* Infrastructure: nearly 80% see a major regional infrastructure collapse, and nearly half of those also think urban infrastructure failures will last 2-4 weeks.* Society: nearly 2/3 believe the social structure of America will handle Y2K.* Government: 1/4 think government will be fine, 1/4 think the government will suffer tremendous problems and "upheaval", and about half think government will have tremendous problems but will make it through. Click here to read the survey results yourself.
THE INTERPRETATION
USA Today covered this survey, obtaining new quotes and interpretation from Bruce Webster. In this USA Today article, Webster revealed, "... about 10% think it's going to be the end of the world as we know it."
As expected, John Koskinen, chief of the President's Year 2000 Council, dismissed the results, saying, "No one can tell you with any certainty what the end of the year is going to look like because so much work is still under way."
But in fact, Koskinen has been telling America exactly what the end of the year is going to look like: a 72-hour snow-storm-like bump in the road. Many programmers and Y2K professionals, it seems, disagree with that analysis.
THE INSIDE WORD
The numerical results of the WDCY2K survey present only half the picture. The other half, the anonymous comments made by those taking the survey, gives us far more information. They paint a picture of corporate and government cover-ups, where good news flows up and bad news gets fired. Here is our collection of actual quotes extracted from the survey results, courtesy of the WDCY2K survey. Each quotation is followed, in brackets, by our comments.
From the corporate world:
"We've redefined compliance and critical systems after first 10 Q's got us reamed by the market analysts." [Telling the truth to the SEC only produces negative consequences. The second time around, corporations wised up and decided to redefine compliance, enabling them to report good news. That keeps the analysts happy, too.]
"As more Year 2000-related disruptions occur in the late summer, the general public will begin to understand the enormity and potential long-term effects of the problem. They will also begin to understand: 1. How devious the Clinton administration has been in their unconscionable suppression of the facts about the situation. 2. The lack of leadership from either the Executive or Legislative branches of the Federal and most state governments. 3. How ineptly most governments have performed in the areas of timely public information, remediation and contingency planning, and civil defense preparedness." [An insider's realization of the enormity of the Y2K cover-up.]
From Y2K consultants:
"I think the impact of Y2K disruptions in other countries on the US economy is being underestimated."
"I expect that the Federal government will use Y2K as a pretext for imposing martial law."
"Upper management is just getting a clue, even though we have been working with clients on Y2K issues for over a year."
"I still predict worldwide deaths in the hundreds of millions..."
"I have a number of clients and talk to programmers employed by other firms. This last week, I heard of two large organizations starting their assessment. One sent an RFP to a services firm." [That means this organization is just getting started. They're searching for bidders to tackle the project.]
"We know that the Titanic sank in an ocean that was better than 99% iceberg-free and that the damage to its hull was confined to holes totaling about 1 square meter in surface area, again far less than 1% of the surface area of the hull. And we know it sank." [Perhaps the most observant single paragraph ever written about Y2K. This explains how 99% compliance is not always acceptable.]
"I plan to acquire and know persons who have already acquired chip-free electric generators. I plan to stockpile non-perishable food starting in June. I plan to stockpile bottled water starting August. I will have three extra cords of firewood. And I will read all the classics during any brownouts." [Further evidence that Y2K consultants are taking action to get prepared.]
"I think there will be continuing denial until catastrophes occur. Then, when everyone tries to implement contingency plans at the same time, the producers of the needed goods and services will be telling them they cannot meet the demand."
"The big weakness is in the area of contingency planning. Most people in positions that should be doing it are just not interested in contingency planning, and are far too wrapped up in everyday chores to do what they need to. I am finding that they are reluctant to plan for the real contingencies, such as the possibility that we could have power outages and communications disruptions, using the excuse that "Well, if that happens we'll be dead in the water anyway." But they don't expect their paychecks to stop coming." [Startling evidence: that those planning for business continuity disruptions are not taking their responsibilities seriously.]
"As a company insider, I know that the utility company I work for has been very accurate in reporting Y2K progress to the public." [An item of good news. The survey contains several such items. This shows that some organizations are likely to achieve compliance before the end of the year.]
"I work with several government agencies. The Pinocchio factor is severe. These guys don't know how to tell the truth, especially when the truth is bad news..."
"During DoDIG [Department of Defense Inspector General] Y2K audit, it became apparent that definitions were so vague that reporting is probably best rather than worst case. [The] federal agency I work for changed items from "mission critical" to "mission essential" so as to buy an additional 3 months to bring systems into compliance." [The smoking gun: this agency moved missions off the mission-critical list to buy more time. This is the first insider admission of the motivation behind this action.]
"Reports that claim completion of contingency planning are simply untrue."
"As the situation develops, I wouldn't be surprised by military drafting of programmers, [a] Manhattan Project approach to Y2k. The public will take an increasingly high-level perspective on problems, will eventually be ready to sacrifice or alter industries as though waging a war."
"The current approach to "avoiding public over-reaction" will ensure panic." [A consultant's assessment that agrees with ours: misinformation is likely to lead to panic.]
"If we can spend federal money making bombs, why can't we spend it producing what we need for civic preparedness?"
"I have been inundated with companies that want me to advise and consult for the Y2K problem. I have not been given straight answers from any companies that supposedly are experts in the problem. I have a consulting office within a law firm, most of the lawyers in this area, (Central New York State, Syracuse) are not sure what to do."
"Only gamblers or those without a choice will be on planes, elevators, or surgical tables on 1/1/2000. I plan on being home in front of the fire."
From military people:
"I talked with a fellow Reservist who was working on Norfolk-Southern's compliance. He said that they (contractors) were forced by the customer's IT staff to push the remediated system out the door before the completion of testing in order to meet the HQ-imposed deadline." [Again, more evidence that non-ready systems are being hurriedly-implemented in order to publicly claim victory.]
"Bad news does not get floated upward!"
"The resulting panic when millions realize on 01/01/00 that they procrastinated too long will be much worse than if many small failures had paved the way for post-rollover problems."
"Even though it has moderate contingency plans, this organization is very dependent upon trusting vendor statements about its COTS hardware and software Y2K compliance. Neither manpower nor effort is being set aside for actual testing to verify these statements." [This is probably true across a large number of organizations: they are looking to offload responsibility rather than actually verify full compliance. If their vendors are claiming false compliance -- and something goes wrong -- they can blame the vendors.]
"All government agencies are not telling the truth. And we all know it!"
From government:
"When some major system fails, directly related to Y2K, then [the] public finally realizes that fed. govt. has spin doctored Y2K news and info."
"Many contingency plans are still focused on single event failures and do not consider multiple, simultaneous failures. As a result many contingency plans are manpower intensive. Manpower resources may be insufficient to handle multiple, simultaneous failures resulting in inability to fully implement contingency plans and subsequent service outages." [A critical observation: Y2K is systemic, not isolated. Contingency plans seem inadequate.]
"Despite the fact that we are in February 1999, some offices are just now beginning to take Y2K as something worthy of management's attention. In very deep denial because management just wants Y2K to "go away." Some offices are in the beginning stages of assessment. Of course, we are reporting that we are 'clean and green' - as the politicians require us to report." [Yet more strong evidence that bureaucrats are lying to the public. Furthermore, this statement admits the existence of a "requirement," placed by politicians, on the programming staff: report good news or else.]
"[Y2K] will roughly follow the X stages of project management, which ends up with "search for the guilty, punishment of the innocent, praise and honors for the uninvolved.""
"Ground systems on satellites [will] fail (not the birds, not chip-related). I have seen the discussion by the military folks about GPS ground systems, and Japan just pulled back one of its experiments in space due to ground systems problems. I have suspected this for at least 18 months (I used to work for GAO in NASA work)." [Inside evidence that GPS systems may yet experience significant problems.]
"[Progress] is not doing as well as they are stating publicly. Concerted effort to hide deficiencies. Deleting systems from critical list to show greater progress than has actually occurred." [Here is it again: an outright admission that failures are being hidden, that systems are being re-categorized to remove them from scrutiny.]
"Why do the public announcements at my work not match up with my observations? Why does the Y2K test system have to be IPL'd each time someone accidentally warps the whole system into Y2K?" [Another admission of the disparity between what's really going on in the computer rooms and the public announcements that claim near-compliance.]
"There is no real disconnect between what we know and what we report, but there is a strong difference between what we report and what the media and the Congress choose to pass on."
From Y2K tool providers:
"In my role as independent Y2K verification test director (and hands on tester) I have observed a number of Y2K non-compliances in both COTS and custom applications that were deemed as Y2K compliant." [Evidence that non-compliant systems are being crowned "compliant."]
From a member of the press:
"Aside from the many particular threats to different elements of different industries, Y2K poses two broad and extremely significant threats to the entire world: (1) bank runs and a financial collapse of enormous proportions especially due to the bubble in markets worldwide; and (2) the devastation that the problem is likely to wreak in major unprepared nations, particularly Japan and Germany.
In part two of this report, to be published this week, Y2KNEWSWIRE reveals additional evidence that Y2K programmers are increasingly concerned about (and preparing for) Y2K. We also bring you the numerical analysis that demonstrates how programmers are now (approximately) eleven times more likely to buy food than the general public.
Did you enjoy this report? Click here to send the web address of this story to a friend.
If you have a Y2K-related story tip for us (anonymity assured):
No matter how much everybody else is caught with their pants down on Y2K, you can make it. Thanks to the global Y2K cover-up and the sad fact that most people are now convinced Y2K isn't a disaster, preparedness is now easier than ever. The twelve-month backlog on storable food is down to a few weeks. Water filters, storage containers and other preparedness items are once again readily available. Advance to the front of the line with the help of our Y2K On-Line Preparedness Community. Plus, get inside information reserved exclusive for our members, access to all our special reports, and risk-reducing advice covering your finances and personal safety. Click here for more information.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 16, 1999