[Note: despite the forcefulness of the language in the preface, I left it in as a part of the story though I'm not sure if it will be accepted. If it is deleted, then just read the story. As they say, "the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of this station."]

>>(PREFACE) Surprised by so few reported Y2K problems? The following may be one reason why: Coverups, lies and misleading statements designed to deceive the public and media. The following story is typical of the "reclassification" going on. Not Y2K Related? Why? 'Cuz I say so! That's Why. (If this link is removed, email us for a copy -- http://www.dingdingding.com/1000.html).

Coverup in Namibian Government Exposed: "It is not a Y2K failure," says Dave Hill, head of Government's Year 2000 Project. "It is a Y2K contingency action," explaining why they pulled the plug over New Years. You might ask why they pulled the plug? "...it was not Y2K compliant," Hill said. The plug was pulled so data would not be lost, he said. Whoa! Hold on. Wait a minute. So then, you can simply plug it back in. Right? Nope. Don't work 'cuz it ain't compliant. Ain't you list'nin, boy? Ok. So it is a Y2K-related compliance problem? Nope. We just didn't fix it ...so we had to pull the plug for Y2K. I am confused now. So then it IS a Y2K related problem? Nope, just a repair problem. We will have it fixed next month. Huh?

Even stranger, when the newspaper returned to ask Home Affairs spokesman, Mikka Asino about the problem, a very upset Asino said, "This problem has nothing to do with Y2K." Asino said, they are merely "upgrading the systems" which are "no longer (Y2K) compatible." Worse, now one employee says that the entire "population register is blank." Confusion or Coverup? Remember, you heard it here first. (END OF PREFACE)

(MAIN STORY)

Not 'Y2K OK' at Home Affairs The Namibian (Windhoek) January 7, 2000 By Tangeni Amupadhi

Windhoek - 'Y2K Ok' goes the Government slogan on the computer millennium bug. Unfortunately it was not OK for the Ministry of Home Affairs whose population register system was unable to cope with the Year 2000 rollover.

Authoritative sources said this week some computers used in the issuing of identification cards (IDs) had been showing wrong dates since the Y2K changeover, indicating the year as 1980.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has been forced to shut down the Identification Card Production System while efforts are being made to upgrade the computer system.

"It is not a Y2K failure," Dave Hill, head of Government's Year 2000 Project said yesterday. "It is a Y2K contingency action," he said in reference to the shutting down of the system.

The shutdown, which was effected last week, means the Ministry is unable to process new ID cards until the problem has been solved - hopefully by the end of this month.

"The system has been suspended because it was not Y2K compliant," Hill said. "It was suspended so that we could not lose data due to the Y2K bug."

When The Namibian first inquired this week, Home Affairs spokesman Mikka Asino denied the ID division had experienced any Y2K problem. Asked about the population register's shut down, Asino said: "This problem has nothing to do with Y2K."

Asino said the Ministry was merely "upgrading the systems" which "are no longer compatible".

"I do not know who fed you with information, but it is not accurate information," Asino said.

Asked to provide accurate information, Asino said he found it inappropriate to comment because the reporter was not forthcoming on who this newspaper's sources were.

Sources close to the ID division said when employees arrived at work this week they were unable to ascertain whether the data was still stored.

"The population register is blank," said one source.

However, a statement from the Y2K information centre said yesterday: "It must be emphasised that while the system has been suspended due to Y2K, no Y2K induced errors or loss of data has occurred as preventative action was initiated in good time."

Sources said the problem was caused by management at Home Affairs who delayed agreeing a contract for the upgrading of the ID system.

"The supplier of the specialised computer hardware and software, G&D of Munich Germany, would not proceed with the supply and installation of the [Y2K] equipment as per order until their purchase contract has been signed and approved," the Y2K information centre, of which Hill is the head, said in the statement.

On the wrong computer dates, Hill said the fact that some computers showed it was 1980 "might be a mild Y2K issue". Concerning some of the computers which indicated that Tuesday was December 5, Hill said the computer dates may have been wrongly set.

Hill pointed out that the computers which were non-compliant "were merely the odd PC" found in non-critical areas, adding that Government's system were largely Y2K compliant.<< (END OF STORY)

----------------------------------------------

[My Comment: The term "Y2K problem" is now leperishly obsolete. It is now a technologically correct "date-sensitive issue". Though the above story is a typical example of someone doing their job, how many outright failures have occured which have been semantically redefined as NON-Y2K related? Or how much "powering down" or "reverting to manual" or "shutting the system down in anticipation of problems" has/is actually taking place? The claim that Y2K is over because "nothing is being reported" or because "it can't be proven" may largely be due to definitional, obligational and legal reasons, not that they're not happening. When will we get over the incongruous notion that, like some Popeye episode where he throws all the engine parts under the hood after eating his spinache, Y2K problems "suddenly fixed themselves" even though they were unequivocally assessed as broken before-hand? The argument that nothing has or will happen based upon said informational sleight of hand is not a convincing one in light of the obvious ramifications of admission as skirtingly evidenced above. For all any of us know, this thing (the world's infrastructure) could be being held together by a spider's thread that even Olive Oil would have no trouble boxing her way out of. To simply use the reasoning that if it cannot be "proven" or "verified" under these abnormal conditions then it is not Y2K-related, is just as much an unwarranted assumption - if not even more, given the specificity, nature and frequency of reports being unquenchingly brought to the surface despite every effort to squelch and minimalize them (which is substantial).]

-----------------------------------------------

-- Patrick Lastella (Lastella1@aol.com), January 28, 2000

Answers

Thank you. Please continue to update this important Namibian doublespeak, as problems there cast a ripple effect over the rest of the world.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), January 28, 2000.

Great post Patrick! Clearly illustrates the doublespeak that's going on world wide concerning (y2k) technology problems.

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), January 28, 2000.