What's wrong Flint, Decker, Y2k Pro, Anita, Poole, Mutha, RMS, Buddy, Hoff, Peg, Robin, Chicken Little, and all you other CPR & Doc Paulie aliases? No comment on the IEEE liabilities issue? Cat got your tongue?

yesterday's thread on Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers letter to the Senate Committee on Liability issue

Suuurre is quite over there...

-- a (a@a.a), June 23, 1999

Answers

Oh...and Maria.

-- a (a@a.a), June 23, 1999.

a -

makes life tough when the "real pros" can see the "interconnected" nature and "systemic" nature of this problem and conclude that Y2k failures are not just 1000% possible but inevitable.

maybe they're taking some time off to re-think their position.

Mike =================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), June 23, 1999.

I think the IP thing is what really has their tongue. Maybe they can debunk the IEEE piece over at diBunki, and we'll cross-post it over here when they're done.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 23, 1999.

Sounds to me like IEEE is worried about the lawyers having a field day with Y2K.

"Complexity kills?" This damn evolution has made us too complex. Return to the water! Devolve! (laughter)

This was written by engineers? I doubt it... it has lawyer fingerprints all over it. It's a lobbying letter, folks. It's a blatant appeal to limit liability. CYA writ large.

The letter says there will be problems. Duh. Who is saying there will be NO problems? I predict a recession due partly to Y2K problems. The real point of the letter is legal immunity, NOT community preparedness or "end of the world" nonsense.

Let me summarize the IEEE letter. "Don't blame us. It's not our fault."

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 23, 1999.

Goodnight, moon .... Sleep, my little ones, sleep ....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 23, 1999.

Wow, this sounds great. I agree with limiting liability. Thanks for posting.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 23, 1999.

comprehension is fundamental...

-

-- read again (every@word.com), June 23, 1999.

...and goodnight to the old lady whispering "hush"...

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), June 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

{snip from IEEE letter}

In addressing public policy issues we have no more expertise than the literate public.

However, we do possess expertise in the technical issues underlying the situation that should be considered as you weigh the conflicting public policy goals in formulating appropriate Year 2000 Liability Legislation.

{end snip}

Them lawyers sho nuff fooled me!

One thing's for sure...I live in Wyoming...If we're headed for the Stone Age, I don't have to go far!

BWAAAAAAAHAHAhahaha

-- Don (dwegner@cheyenneweb.com), June 23, 1999.

Does anyone remember the long thread and exchange from March 16th...

I put together the NERC filing for my company, what's the question? Everyone is yelling for truth and information and this change does that. I would complain if they didn't ask for items that weren't going to meet schedule because if you know anything about utility operations you know you can only test some components when you are in an outage (for some reason customers get upset if you turn their power off so you can do testing) and if you have been following Y2K issues you know that vendors are slowing down on their response rates for answering inquiries and generating fixes. Nobody is trying to hide anything or make themselves sound better than they are. What I find amazing are the large numbers of people who listen to so called experts that don't really have a clue as to what is really out there (North and Cowles come to mind)yet see fit to complain when they get real information with some real analysis.

-- Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E. (jennexme@sce.com), March 16, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000c 9w

And, how all the Debunkie's howled at the thread? And hoisted Jennex on their shoulders, proclaiming his greatness to the world?

Well, lookie who happens to sit on the IEEE Y2K Committee:

Dr. Murray Jennex

What a doom monger that Jennex is, contributing to the IEEE document!!!

From the IEEE document:

In addressing public policy issues we have no more expertise than the literate public.

However, we do possess expertise in the technical issues underlying the situation that should be considered as you weigh the conflicting public policy goals in formulating appropriate Year 2000 Liability Legislation.

Also, I might have missed something - is IEEE selling some Y2K related products?

-- Dan Webster (dan_webster@flashmail.com), June 23, 1999.

Do those apples make you pucker Mr. Pecker?

-- a (a@a.a), June 23, 1999.

I interpreted the IEEE document to say, "We're going to have a lot of problems. If we work real hard, we can fix our way out of them. We can never *sue* our way out of them. Legal threats are an unnecessary distraction to the engineering that must be done."

While I agree that you don't fix bugs with lawsuits, I don't think failure to grant legal protection to the computer industry is going to make any real difference one way or the other. Most lawyers can't fix bugs anyway. Suing the worst offenders into bankruptcy won't reduce the pool of programming or engineering talent, but it might temporarily displace some poor management.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 23, 1999.

Jesus, if Flint's ass were on fire I doubt he'd notice he is so soundly asleep. Hey Flint, wake up and smell the smelling sauce before you burn your buttocks.

-- (Flint@was stung. as an infant), June 23, 1999.

Flint states: "I interpreted the IEEE document to say, "We're going to have a lot of problems. If we work real hard, we can fix our way out of them. We can never *sue* our way out of them. Legal threats are an unnecessary distraction to the engineering that must be done."

Flint, I do agree that problems are not going to be mitigated through lawyers and their LARGE FEES. We agree on that. I do, however, question your statement about fixing our way out of the problems. In some cases, yes, that will surely work fine. In so many other cases, before the rollover there is simply not enough time, and after the rollover, fixes will not occur in a timely fashion (too few resources, too much demand for same, among other problems). Many corporate structures will be badly crippled, lots and lots of governmental agencies on the fed, state and local levels will simply freeze up from the lack of or poor remediation efforts. Despite many great success stories in the utilities industry, for each success story, there is likely a massive failure story out there waiting to surface. Those are the situations that will strain at this country's seams that you will simply be unable to ignore on rollover and beyond. I suppose I am somewhat right of center and you are somewhat left. I read your posts because you do make the effort at reasoned responses, however I have noticed your slant toward right just a little bit over the past several months. That is also why I continue to read your posts, because you are bending towards realism, which I respect.

-- (mass@delusions.com), June 23, 1999.

If everything is AOK, nobody needs CYA writ large.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), June 23, 1999.

Mass:

Just as a minor nit, I was presenting my interpretation of the IEEE lobbying effort. I didn't say I agreed with them, although by and large I think we can fix the problems, if not satisfactorily, at least to the point where we can stuggle by for a while. The important thing is that the IEEE missive was addressing legal protection. It wasn't so much a technical treatise on the problems, as a recognition that they are many and varied and take lots of resources to remediate now AND to fix later. I think the subtext was that killing off the computer industry with huge awards against them when we most need them is shooting ourselves in the foot.

Lane:

Your premise is a bit frightening. Covering our asses is sane, whether we feel we need to or not. Saying we don't need a bit CYA if there are no problems reminds me of those who want to remove all restrictions on police, on the grounds that if you don't do anything wrong you won't have anything to worry about.

The legal system is capricious, and makes some howlingly bad decisions. The IEEE makes a pretty forceful argument that our computerized interrelationships have led to a situation where *everyone* is guilty. And where everyone is guilty, nobody is guilty. If the legal system is (and it is) forced to decide for one party or another, in cases of mutual responsibility for problems, then these decisions must be regarded as essentially random, and controllable at all only at great expense. And making all the lawyers very rich isn't going to fix a single bug.

A while back I predicted some sort of no-fault legislation, and it's looking more and more reasonable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 23, 1999.

Decker says: "This was written by engineers? I doubt it... it has lawyer fingerprints all over it. It's a lobbying letter, folks. It's a blatant appeal to limit liability. CYA writ large."

Why would lawyers want to help LIMIT their role in Y2K liability lawsuits? When have lawyers EVER helped limit their involvement in any liability problem? On the contrary, lawyers love to further broaden and create legislation so as to INCREASE their involvement (and coffers).

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 24, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

It would be kind of you to answer Old gits Question! regarding the vested interest of lawyers attempting to assuage companies from suing. That does not seem to follow any logic. Would'nt you agree? Respectfully

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), June 24, 1999.

Old Git,

As my grandfather once observed. "Do you know the difference between a laywer and a prostitute? There some things a prostitute won't do." Y2K may become a windfall for some lawyers, but companies and other interests are fighting this potential outcome... using (surprise!) lawyers.

From Debunker, lest anyone thinks I have something to hide:

"My comments on IEEE letter are on record. I read nothing in the letter to support the "end of the world" rhetoric bandied about. In fact, the letter focuses the potential legal ramifications of Y2K problems. Because IEEE is worried about legal problems post-Y2K, it stands to reason they think the U.S. will have a functioning legal system after the rollover.

Of course, this requires an application of logic."

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 24, 1999.

David Butt-head:

Gee, I can't imagine why a lawyer representing a company who could be the subject of frivolous lawsuits over Y2K would want to limit liability, do you? Since the IEEE is made up primarily of engineers who work for companies that build these products doesn't it follow that they stand to lose the most if their companies are sued out of business?

-- Do You See (howstupid@youlook.com), June 24, 1999.

Corporate attorneys don't make more money when their firms are involved in frivolous Y2K lawsuits.... The smart companies tie compensation into stock options and profits. Every suit costs the company money, thus lowering profits and stock values. In addition, high paid lobbyists are often lawyers (by training, if not trade.) They get paid to move (or kill) legislation. Don't think for a moment there wasn't serious money moving around the Y2K immunity legislation. The trial lawyers want a fat ox to gore. The business community doesn't want to pay for Y2K problems (even if they caused them.) This, friends, is the uglier side of our political system.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 24, 1999.

Old Git and David:

I don't know much about the legal system, but I DO know that corporations have their OWN lawyers that attempt to protect the firms from suits. I once subcontracted through Raytheon at Texas Utilities. Raytheon had passed me off as one of their employees. T.U. learned of my independent status. Raytheon and the lawyers at T.U. bantered back and forth regarding this. T.U. had been "burned" by independents before that later came back and sued for benefits. The end result was that I had to either leave or find an "employer" to represent me at T.U. My particular case had to do with the IRS 20 questions that must be answered to define an independent. ONE of those questions is whether one is assigned office space at a firm. If office space is assigned, the independent is considered an employee of the client, and therefore can claim due benefits.

Bottom line here is that lawyers work on BOTH sides of the fence. They attempt to AVOID suits when paid to do so, as well as CREATE suits when paid to do so.

Anita

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), June 24, 1999.

Worth a read...

The Watershed Significance of the IEEE Letter to Congress

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

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 24, 1999.

Almost all large corporations retain outside law firms instead of or in addition to their own legal departments. The Johns-Manville asbestosis cases, for instance, were farmed out to several large law firms across the country, among them the one I contracted with for many years. But cases are not confined to the unusual; Chevron's labor matters were handled by another client firm, Hapag-Lloyd's casualty problems were worked by yet another, and so on. Fortune 500 company names abound on the client rosters of the firms with which I am familiar.

The IEEE letter appears to have been vetted by one or more attorneys, but it is not the carefull ironclad document one would expect from an attorney's hand. Naturally, firms wish to limit their liability for any problems, Y2K or not, and letters to politicians in support of favorable legislation are not unusual. What IS unusual about this letter is its inclusion of many unequivocal statements. Attorneys hate to use an absolute where an ambiguity will do.

For instance, the letter says: ". . .technical prevention of all Y2K failures has never been possible in any practical way. . ." You can't get much more definite than that. If the letter had been heavily controlled by a lawyer, that phrase would have read: ". . . Technical prevention of all Y2K failures has probably never been possible. . ." There are other parts of the letter that could have been equivocal but aren't:

"When this `Humpty Dumpty' is put back together again, it will not [as opposed to "may not"] work as expected without complete testing. . ."

"Complexity. . . will overwhelm the testing infrastructure that was never [as opposed to "may never have been"] designed to test `everything at once.' Hence, much software will have [as opposed to "may have"] to be put back into use without complete testing, a recipe, almost a commandment, for widespread failures."

Other unequivocal statements are:

". . . the size and complexity of the undertaking is such that if any but the smallest organization is not already well into the work, there is not enough time for the incentive of legal liability to have any discernible positive effect on the outcome."

"A negative effect will result from management diverting resources from prevention into legal protection."

"There will be system failures, especially in large, old, richly interconnected `systems of systems' as exist in the financial services and government sector."

". . . Y2K computer problems will be causing computer system malfunctions and failures for years into the next decade."

". . . it will take years for the infrastructure to `calm down' after Y2K impacts themselves AND the impacts of the sometimes frantic and misguided changes we have made to it."

"4.3 Lawsuits, Actual or Threatened, Will Divert Requisite Resources. Preventing and minimizing harm to society from Y2K disruption is different than, and at times opposed to, protecting one's organization from legal liability."

Sure, there's a lot of equivocation too. But the amount of unequivocal writing is significant. This is a serious attempt by the IEEE to warn politicians about some PROBABLE (not "possible") adverse effects of Y2K.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 24, 1999.

Old git, sorry but there are no guarantees in life. Those comments you pulled out say exactly that. Nothing new here. Wow, so you really think we can't test the whole enchalada! Again nothing new here, duplicating the production envrionment on this scale would costs lots of $ that no business can afford. Does that prove chaos on 1/1/00? No. Does that prove there will be problems? Well, yes.

Further, I agree with point 2 through 4 which only discuss legal impacts not technical.

-- Nice (try@but.nocigar), June 24, 1999.

Do you see how stupid you look!

The Name is Butts not Butt-head, (even though I understand the temptation). But I must convey that, looking stupid pales in comparison to being a spineless, coward that hides behind an e-mail address. By the way, the discussion regarding the IEEE document seems to have been diverted by MR. Decker to a discussion on Lobbying and lawyers. That was quite a diversion, everyone seems to have fallen for it by responding to Deckers OPINION that it's the lobbyist that perpetuated the info. in the document, Not the astute studies of the engineers. OBFUSCATION!! by decker. What does "Computer Scientists thoughts on y2k" and "Offering Points pertaining to the TECHNICAL REALITIES",have to do with discussing lobbyists on a web page designed for intelligent people looking for information on a Subject of such incredible ambiguity

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), June 24, 1999.

Mr. Decker's tactics make me wonder if he might be a descendant of P.T. Barnum. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 24, 1999.

Wow, a readable response from Hardliner. Sorry, "H," I'm not the one making the money on the "sucker" born every minute. If you want, though, I can direct you. (laughter)

If the IEEE had come out with a technical assessment, I'd pay far more attention to this letter. The opinion that we are going to have some Y2K problems is not exactly a news flash. The whole point of the letter is asking for regulatory relief from potential litigation. Let's give the IEEE credit and assume they have everyone's best interests in mind. They simply feel we, as an economy, will handle Y2K far better than if the lawyers get involved. OK, reasonable argument.

So where's the community preparation statement from the IEEE? Where is their version of "the code is broken" and "we started too late." Why worry about legal issues WHEN THE FATE OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE HANGS IN THE BALANCE! (laughter)

If this is the watershed document of Y2K, I'm embarrassed to have predicted a recession. C'mon, folks. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Read the letter without the "end of the world" goggles strapped firmly in place.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 24, 1999.

Oops. Lawyers DON'T get involved.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 24, 1999.

Nice (try@but.nocigar), sorry but you misunderstand the thrust of my post. Decker opined that the IEEE letter was written by lawyers; I posited that it was not.

There are no guarantees in life, you say. I respond, admittedly with sarcasm but gently, "Pas de merde, Sherloque." Those comments I pulled out were demonstrations of unequivocation, not prediction.

The remainder of your post appears to be a response to someone else, since I did not address the issues you raise, except to say that [based on my wide experience of legal writing], "This is a serious attempt by the IEEE to warn politicians about some PROBABLE (not 'possible') adverse effects of Y2K," rather than primarily an attorney-generated document with the limitation of liability as its sole purpose.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 25, 1999.

While Decker (laughter) can`t hear the (footstep) behind him....BTW doesn`t Russia`s current social dynamic look an awful lot like a deevolutionary sprial, a la Infomagic? Prediction:Clintion gives major "Lets get busy on y2k" Late Aug. 1999

-- bud (bud@computersedge.com), June 25, 1999.

Old Git,

"Lawyer fingerprints" A subtle difference but one worth noting. I'm sure the engineers at IEEE wrote the letter, but the legal eagles vetted everything. IEEE is worried about rollover problems, but the thrust of the letter is legal liability. No "rice and beans" talk.

And Russia (from Czars to totalitarian "communism") is far different in history and culture than the United States (200+ years of freedom, and Yankee trading.) Apples and oranges.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 25, 1999.

I only address areas of my expertise. My area of expertise is SOFTWARE...not embedded chips. I look to Harlan Smith for embedded chip information.

I once dared to include myself in a thread revolving around hybrid/non-hybrid seeds, and was ripped to shreds by another Anita, oftentimes now known as farmer. I learned my lesson well. I don't speak to subjects of which I have no knowledge unless I have questions to ask.

Anita

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), June 25, 1999.

Make up your mind Mr. Decker. First you say "This was written by engineers? I doubt it..." and now you're saying "I'm sure the engineers at IEEE wrote the letter...". What's up with that?

-- Twist & Shout (no email@my.place), June 25, 1999.

Yes, I contradicted myself. When I first read the letter it sounded very "lawyercentric." On reflection, I find no reason to doubt the veracity of the authors. If asked to guess, I'd say the original authors were the engineers, and then the letter was vetted by attorneys. It's hard to tell if this is a "public service" letter by IEEE or a lobbying job. Unlike some pessimists, I freely admit to mistakes.

Regards,

P.S. The original tone of this thread was a smug challenge to the "Polly's." I have yet to read a decent rebuttal to my contention that the IEEE letter presupposes a functioning legal system after the rollover. Anyone?

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 25, 1999.

And the legal system requires a healthy USPS/FEDEX/UPS.

Oh, funny..... we have got to convince Postal Workers and FEDEX drivers to somehow "lose" mail from attorneys for a few months after the rollover. See what happens.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 25, 1999.

Thank you for the honest reply Mr. Decker.

I agree that the document centers around legal issues but also find the comments about y2k interesting.

-- Twist & Shout (no email@my.place), June 25, 1999.

Actually Mr. Decker,

I thought that the main thrust of the IEEE letter was quite simple.

1. Business are withholding valuable information about Y2K progress and problems and not doing more to solve them because their lawyers won't let them due to potential lawsuits after the fact (and some before).

2. Corporate lawyer concern about liability indeed presupposes that the there will be some sort of judicial system in existence post rollover.

While the IEEE letter does not mention rice and beans, their concern is that the amelioration of the problem ex ante is being hampered by the lawyers' EXPECTATION of punishment for even trying. It is not clear to me that they take a position on the existence of the judicial system post rollover, only the fear of it on the part of the lawyers today.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), June 25, 1999.

Mr. Decker

It is MHO that the letter is as much a political letter as a legal letter. A little like who is going to blink first, the tech folk or the political folk.

Just what type of problem is Y2K? The IEEE see it much differantly than those in power. At least publicly. This is as much a challange as a request.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 25, 1999.

Actually it may be ironic.... I have not seen the latest Gartner industry assessment but the Legal Profession was the least Y2K prepared on a previous report. Funny world. It would be even funnier if they depend mostly on MS software and MS doesn't get it right.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 25, 1999.