This evening I had the pleasure of dining with a former very high up gov't official. His position was/is such that he is frequently called to testify before congress, advises many foreign gov'ts, central bankers, etc., etc.

He initially and spontaneously expressed 'moderate' y2k concerns. Then I began 'blasting away' (in a very respectful way, of course) on certain y2k points, including certain information gleaned from the most recent "Weather Report", such as Joel Williamson's comments on the estimated cost of remediating the non-mission-critical federal systems, the implied status of the IRS and continuing uncertainty on FAA status. I added my concerns on the petroleum industry, health care and others. With this he acknowledged 'greater understanding'. He knows Joel Williamson and nodded in agreement as I ran through my litany of concerns.

So it turns out that he is actually somewhat of a 'doomer' (for lack of a better term). He provided some interesting information, including the fact that he believes a 20% VAT is 'ready' to go into effect when/if IRS fails and that the FAA systems cannot be fixed but that the current solution was a program layered on top of the old system to make it y2k compliant - a bandage that will not work long-term but may get us through the rollover (I don't know if this makes any sense). He also offered some first hand observations from South and Central America as follows, "Many countries have done nothing; they have not started yet."

We agreed that someone needs to warn the American public that this is going to be something more than a three day storm and that the current administration is 'misleading' people. We agreed that some credible figure needs to step forward to achieve this in a very public forum (e.g. television news conference). He said that he does not have sufficient credibility (name recognition) to do so, but knows certain senators who believe along with him that the U.S. should not go over the cliff at full throttle. I indicated to this person that I would be happy to meet with any such senators or other credible individuals who might be able and willing to sound an alarm. But what credibility do I have? (hint: none)

There has been speculation on why no programmers have come forward to reveal the truth if in fact the remediation is not going as well as publicly stated. The 'doomers' say this is for fear of repraisals, etc., while the 'pollies' say this is because no such individuals exist. I tend to believe that just as the y2k problem itself is so complex as to defy encapsulation in a sound bite, even when a company is failing miserably, the reasons for a programmer concluding this are not as straightforward as us non-technical types might believe or even be able to digest.

Nonetheless, if possible, I would like to identify several individuals who are willing to meet with and disclose to a certain public official substantial and, of course, accurate inside information that clearly demonstrates why the outcome from y2k will be more severe than the BITR/three day storm message suggests.

The reason such disclosures must be made is in order that the public official be given enough ammunition to go forward confidently. As you will understand, the individual who might do this would be taking an enormous risk and would immediately be attacked from many sides. Thus the need for solid, substantial and unimpeachable 'ammunition'.

If anyone is so willing, please email me with a very brief description of what information you possess and your position within the organization. At this point I do not want you to provide the name of your organization or company but rather the industry and size (e.g. top 10 int'l bank, top 5 oil firm, etc.) You need not even provide your name. Just make sure there is a valid email address at which you can be reached. Of course you may provide your name and phone number, which would make this task much easier for me. All correspondence will remain 100% confidential (and I am willing to sign any legal agreement to that effect if need be.)

If I receive a sufficient response, I will go forward in attempting to schedule a meeting with the public figure. Provided the public figure is willing to go forward to the American people, I will contact the respondents and organize further.

This may be a crazy idea. It probably has a low chance for success. And it begs the question of whether or not any warning, at this point in time, could really do any good.

I am doing this because I believe that this is a national crisis of immense proportions and because, despite all her corporate and individual flaws, I still love my country .

-- Steve Roberts (rbtrout1@hotmail.com), October 23, 1999

Answers

Steve,

Alas, I fear that some of us have become so jaded and cynical at this point that we have to wonder whether you, too, are a troll. But assuming you're not, I have to agree with the overall theme of several others who have posted on this thread already: the bad news is out there, in the clear, direct from the Senate itself, not to mention the CIA and the State Department and as many credible authorities as anyone could reasonably ask for. It has not caused any significant reaction, and at this point, I think it's far too late to hope that one more bit of testimony will do the trick.

You may well get a lot of notes and comments from insiders who have some scary stories to tell -- I know that I have. But getting hard, tangible, incontrovertible "smoking gun" evidence is much, MUCH more difficult. And remember: such info would be coming from relatively low-level peons in the organization, and the companies they accuse would ramp up an enormous PR response, and then stonewall any inquiries. If the U.S. Senate has been unable to embarrass or humiliate 75% of the electric utilities into disclosing their status to NERC, I doubt that a whistle-blower is going to have much of a chance.

Meanwhile, all you have to do is look at the surveys that showed up yesterday about the status of chemical plants; take a look at the summary on Sanger's site at http://sangersreview.com if you haven't seen it already... if that's not enough to tighten up your sphincter muscles, I don't know what is...

It's reassuring to hear that there are at least a few senior officials in Washington who are concerned about the outcome of Y2K. Maybe they'll be there to pick up the pieces, and maybe they won't be tainted by the backlash.

For whatever it's worth, I'm sure you could collect a handful of us veteran IT people to help articulate the likely risks; people like Howard Rubin, Capers Jones, and Leon Kappelman come to mind, and there are probably a couple dozen others who would be happy to volunteer, including myself.

Good luck in your efforts.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), October 23, 1999.

I really don't think you need to look much farther than the Senate themselves. They have already taken lots of testimony, have produced their 100 Day Report which is quite alarming and also produced a follow-up Oct 13 testimony and report. That, along with all the other significant data from good sources, should be enough.

Senators Bennett and Dodd are high enough, are they not? But the message is still being suppressed by the mainstream media. And Koskinen is still down playing the whole event. Go figure!

I am going on a local radio station this next week for two, 1-hour shows to discuss this very issue and present much of this info. My message is simple - if, after reviewing the data, you see sufficient risk of problems ahead, then prepare. Once warned and presented the facts it is up to the individual families to act. They will have to live with the consequences if they do not prepare.

Charlie

-- Charlie Hicks (chicks@ix.netcom.com), October 23, 1999.

Steve, yes, it is mind-boggling, but there seems to be a Stupidity Cloak over Y2K. When the curtain falls the scenes of mayhem will stun the audience. TPTB have helped weave snicker spin and ridicule scoff deeply into the Cloaking Curtain, and the Tapestry Travesty of Lies will become a burial shroud vestige.

There is indeed a group that is developing contingency plans "outside the box."

Hints and clues of this throughout archives.

This won't be your grandfather's revolution.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 23, 1999.

Steve:

Charlie's right...........Bennett and Dodd's committe has received the testimony and issued the report. The news media is used to them on the radar screen. The only person that the news media would listen to at this date is Clinton, and he would be committing political suicide to stand up and warn about anything. Good intentions, Steve, and best of luck in whatever you decide to do. At this point, just make sure your personal preps are in order

Charlie, best of luck on the talk radio. I've been on the air the last two Tuesday mornings in Memphis for the "Y2K Tuesday" segment offered by a local station, once as a guest and once as a caller. I was the "doomer". I said to prepare for at least two weeks, just in case Memphis Light Gas & Water or TVA missed something (both say they are ready). I cited the stats from Cap Gemini that only 56% of the surveyed companies expected to be finished and that Ed Yardeni continues to predict a 70% chance of recession. My point was that there is uncertainty and cause for concern. The good news is, not one caller called in to say I was crazy. The bad news is, I don't think anyone got the message.

Best of luck to everyone.

-- David (dwaldrip@aol.com), October 23, 1999.

I wish I had info to give you. I'm afraid the news media is not into predicting bad news.--just reporting as it happens. (I personally believe news media get upset if a huracane doesn't hit well) My best advice--Do a paid advertisement during prime time (I know pricey). Hopefully if those who are trying to yell the loudest are willing to invest in such an advertisement to protect this nation from its own naiiveness to the subject of y2k. Isn't NBC doing a TV made movie. Maybe they might be interested to do a prelude to their movie? This is just my input, I hope it helps.

-- Ice (icemanltd@webtv.net), October 23, 1999.

Steve,

Best wishes for success in this effort. I hope you do receive more information though I'm concerned about timing. I wish I could help you in some way.

I'm with Ashton & Leska. We're getting close to zero hour and a critical point in time for hour country. Contingency plans "outside the box" seem all too possible.

Mike

=================================================================

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

Is it too late for America to be warned and prepare?

Yes. But it might not be too late for you to prepare.

69 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), October 23, 1999.

Steve,

Just to eliminate any thoughts of you being a "troll", Are you the significant other of one Cokie Roberts? Might clear up the access question to a "high-level" government official.

Please read this Paula Gordon letter and ensuing thread with the Rep. Dennis Kucinich D-OH conversation -

Link

Your comments please...

Widespread preparations at this stage would look like panic.

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), October 23, 1999.

I would have to agree that it is generally too late for America to get prepared and there is only time for individuals to make some preparations. The problem, as we all know, is that the truth has been told. Unfortunately, it has been completely surrounded on both sides with opinions that range from a "hoax" to "TEOTWAWKI." I have no doubts that after the rollover, the government will be able to look back, pull the appropriate statements out of the many hearing and opinions and say "There, we told you this would happen so its not our fault."

-- smfdoc (smfdoc@aol.com), October 23, 1999.

Steve,

I know you have a common name, but I have to ask: Are you Steve Roberts the journalist, husband of ABC's Cokie Roberts, son -in-law of the Ambassador to the Vatican, cousin of Rep. Barney Frank and his sister (former WH Comms Director) Anne Lewis?

I am just curious, but regardless of who you are, I applaud your efforts on behalf of our country.

Best of luck, and report back soon on your findings.

-- semper paratus (always@ready.now), October 23, 1999.

Regarding the chances that Pres. Clinton might begin to level with the public at this late stage: politically, it would be tempting to blame most of the calamities on cyberterrorism. This strategy could be adopted by all those trying to avoid Y2K litigation, and might be hard to disprove. It could lower the chances of revolutionary activity, and might even get Gore elected. Since there probably will be some Y2K cyberterrorism, the public might buy the whole thing.

-- Bill Byars (billbyars@softwaresmith.com), October 23, 1999.

At this point in time it does not matter who is at fault, what will matter is that people will be starving and depending on the government to save them. I believe this is a great calculated risk that the government is taking by not coming out and asking people to have food and water on hand just in case. The risk will be anarchy and total chaos and perhaps this is what TPTB wants. The message is out there no doubt, but what kind of message is it? The Bill Cosby Y2K Show the other night was a good example of the message the media is sending to the American people. Steve, your concern at this point really does not matter except to be prepared for yourself and family. With 60+ days to go, what could the media or any Senator say to the American people that would motivate them to prepare for even a 3-day emergency? The wheels are already set in motion and the ball is rolling down the hill, it's too late.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), October 23, 1999.

Cyber-terrorism; I am a little ISP in eastern Virginia. Sometimes I do security work for some of the other ISP's in the area. In every case where I have had an opportunity to work on another ISP's network, I have found serious compromises in one form or another. In studying those compromises and attempting to track down the people responsible, I have shown (to myself atleast) that about 70% of the networks involved have been compromised to the administrator level. I have requested the assistance of an agency (which will remain nameless) in one case and discovered that they "farmed out" their investigative chores to a contractor (who proved to be more interested in whether or not he was going to get called again, than the truth). The case was not solved. It is not appropriate to go into it in this forum so I won't and you shall have to decide for yourself whether or not you believe me. The bottom line turned out to be, "The bad guys have more expertise, time, and control of local ISP's in this area than the ISP's themselves AND the best law enforcement agencies you can call to get help are unable to do anything about it." Word. My feeling is that those "bad guys" have a vested interest in keeping the local systems running (money... scamming credit card data, etc.. etc...) and they will actually be an assett in the rough days ahead BUT the implication is that if it is that easy to seize control of large segments of the local wan structures. Any governmnet that wants to can (and conceivably) already has done that. What better way to move your secure communications than to mix them with a few thousand spam messages, for example?

I think my server is secure...

-m-

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 23, 1999.

I am not a troll.

My wife is not famous except perhaps for her aol account, which I use from home. See "Genroberts" at CS-y2k.

-- Steve Roberts (rtrout1@hotmail.com), October 23, 1999.

Here's a link to what I perceive as a preemptory SPIN in regards to who's to blame if the lights go out. Read the first article on the page and you'll see what I mean.

F ederal Computer Week Article Hope this works..grin.

beej

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), October 23, 1999.

That article is nothing but bullsh*t, blather, stupidity, and anyone like me for instance can see right through the stupdity of it. BARFO!

-- BARF (BARF@BARFFF.xcom), October 23, 1999.

it's too late.

someone else someplace else somewhen else (my memory wants it to be bonnie camp on the original euy2k.com open forum)said that the administration's strategy for y2k was set in stone many months ago and they couldn't change it now without disastrous consequences, even if they wanted to.

if any public figure with high visibility and public confidence went on tv tomorrow night and advised the country to prepare for two weeks of disruptions, there would be widespread and uncontrollable panic. all the disastrous consequences of y2k that have been predicted would come to pass: bank runs, food shortages, a stock market crash.

but if the current silence continues, the disastrous consequences of y2k will remain a 'maybe' unless something seriously and obviously breaks (with a respectful nod to mr. yourdon, who said something like this a few months ago).

so: to speak up and definitely cause a panic, or to keep quiet and hope there aren't any serious problems and therefore there isn't any panic?

i'd keep quiet. i hate to say it, but i do think that's the logical choice.

as always, this is just my two cents. it sounded real good in my head but something may have gotten lost on the way to my keyboard :<)

-- maggie huntone (mah1t1@provide.net), October 24, 1999.