Denver Realizes It *IS* In Trouble

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Maybe we should worry By Chuck Green Denver Post Staff Columnist

Jan. 22 - Until now, I hadn't considered the so-called Y2K computer glitch to be much more than a minor speed bump on our wondrous journey into the 21st century.

I certainly didn't take it seriously recently when a national gathering of survivalists described the impending computer crisis as likely to cause "the largest disaster in human history.''

I figured if the toilets flush, the water taps don't run dry and the gasoline pumps keep operating, my life won't be terribly inconvenienced. That's the beauty of being a simple journalist, living at a level barely above that of an ameba.

After all, the utility companies and the banks and the IRS all have assured us that they have the problem under control. The power company will keep our lights lit, there is no need to hoard gold because you're worried the banks might shut down and the revenooers will still be able to process your tax return on April 15, 2000.

Rest easy, they say.

Well, not so fast, pardner.

It seems there might be cause to worry after all.

While your friendly banker might reassure you that there is no need to panic and start keeping your cash under the mattress, your friendly banker might be talking with forked tongue.

Colorado bankers - and stock brokers and credit unions and trust companies - are asking the Colorado legislature to protect them against lawsuits filed by customers in case the Y2K bug infests the nation's financial system.

A Republican state senator from Englewood, Tom Blickensderfer, and a Republican state representative from Greeley, Tambor Williams, have proposed a law to shield "financial service providers'' from liability if customers can't access their assets because of the so-called millennium bug and decide to sue for punitive damages.

The protection is extensive.

You couldn't hold your bank responsible if your money is unavailable because of "transportation delays, energy failures or communications problems,'' according to provisions of House Bill 1190 now pending in the legislature.

It also provides financial institutions immunity for punitive damages as the result of "any failure of any computer system because of a Year 2000 problem.''

So, come January 1 you're on your own, according to your personal banker.

According to some experts, this could become a trend. Utility companies, data-transmission providers, hospitals and a vast array of other businesses might be expected to ask legislators for similar immunity in case they are crippled by the Y2K bug.

Apparently your banker isn't very confident that his computers will keep whirring, or that the electric company will keep the tranmission lines buzzing, or that the telephone company will keep the phones ringing.

And if your banker isn't comfortable with Y2K preparations, how comfortable should you be? Suddenly the Y2K threat seems more personal than it did just a couple of days ago.

In fact, it's really starting to bug me.

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

Sooner or later, People will catch on just like thisguy and it will be a mad rush for the exits. Panic city. It is only a matter of time.

It is not aquestion of 'if' panic will begin. It is only a question of 'when'. This is mot a 'millennial' thing. It is not a 'religious' thing. It is plain and simple that people will eventually realize that they can not rely upon the dependencies. They can not rely upon specious assurances with ZERO proof at all.

They will panic. The only way to avoid being affectd by the panic is to do what is necessary BEFORE the rest of them hot the bricks. Mostly that means food and water. Bt it ,eans getting your other assets in your physical possession before you can no longer access them. Banks, stock markets, etc, will crap out.

If you wait to see Joe Sixpack run on the bank, you are too late.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/green0122.htm Paul Milne If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 22, 1999

Answers

This brings up what PI*&^*&ES me off about Y2K almost more than anything else.

Everybody, EVERYBODY in business gets to make preparations. The insurance industry slid no-direct-Y2K coverage bills past FORTY STATES before the Year 2000 was nicknamed Y2K! A year ago!

Now banks want protection against the very inter-connection that they've spend all their time and money trying to interconnect (and subsequently milk) themselves into!

People, is it NOT reasonable for us, given this chicken&(*t behavior, to expect that we should be able to walk into a bank and ask to borrow 5 grand to make Y2K preparations?!?!??!? Is Y2K still a dirty little secret or isn't it?? If banks can attempt to hide from Y2K via cowardly legislation, my vote says 2000 must be REAL, and it must be a threat to SOMEBODY.

Insurance, then banks. They ALWAYS get over. In that order.

What pansies. Colorado should be ashamed.

When will it be OK to prepare?

-- Lisa (mad@now.yep), January 22, 1999.


This article talks about state legislation, not the city of Denver. As far as I know (haven't seen anything different), the city of Denver still plans a "fix-on-failure" approach. I think that the only people who will make out like bandits (no matter what the outcome on 1/1/00) are the lawyers. People will be sueing everyone else for their problems (isn't that the american way?).

I think this is a good move on the banks' part. They are not really hiding "from Y2K via cowardly legislation". They are looking for protection (not from Y2K failures) but from the panic that may occur.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 22, 1999.


Thanks for the heads up on this Paul.

I agree with the author -- i.e. if everything is fine and all the government's and corporations' 'mission critical' systems are 'on track', then why are these groups lobbying for such special protection?

If I were suspicious, I'd begin to think that they know something that the rest of us only suspect....

But since I'm not suspicious and I fully believe their press releases, we should assure these groups that there is nothing to worry about and such special protection isn't needed. And after all, don't our legislators have more important things to do than waste time passing legislation that won't be needed? Let's imply tell the banks that they have nothing to worry about and don't really need this kind of 'preparation'.

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), January 22, 1999.


Maria, YFI, then why can't the F taxpayers ask for protection against a panic??????????????????????????????????

-- Lisa (stop@me.now), January 22, 1999.

Maria: Please try to stay focused here. They article did not say the banks were attempting to shield themselves from panic, rather it said:

A Republican state senator from Englewood, Tom Blickensderfer, and a Republican state representative from Greeley, Tambor Williams, have proposed a law to shield "financial service providers'' from liability if customers can't access their assets because of the so-called millennium bug and decide to sue for punitive damages.

(The emphasis is mine)

The banks contend, in a multitude of press releases, that they are on track, that remediation will be complete. Many power companies have said they will be ready. Now, these groups want special protection from the very thing they have told us we are silly to worry about.

You don't have to be Einstein to see that these two positions are not only contrary, but extremely self serving.

If what these groups have told us is true, then they need no special protection. If they really do need special protection, then what they have told us is not true. They can't have it both ways.

No bailouts, no blank checks, no special protection from actual Y2K problems. Unlike those involved in the savings and loan debacle, these institutions should have to live with the consequences of their actions.

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), January 22, 1999.



Troll Maria -

Please review:

"'You couldn't hold your bank responsible if your money is unavailable because of 'transportation delays, energy failures or communications problems,' according to provisions of House Bill 1190 now pending in the legislature."

"It also provides financial institutions immunity for punitive damages as the result of 'any failure of any computer system because of a Year 2000 problem.'"

I see concern about failures in infrastructure and computer systems, not about social unrest. Unless you think all those "transportation delays, energy failures or communications problems" will be caused by folks panicking. Do you?

Panic-induced power outages? That would be a first.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), January 22, 1999.


Can't blame them for trying to cover theirs... No one accepts responsiblity for anything or acknowledges that life makes no guarantees. Take the fine example of our fearless leader for example. Or get in an accident - what % are you at fault? It can't be that some accidents are just that - accidents. If our society wasn't so sue crazy this wouldn't even occur.

Maybe we'll get lucky and the lawyers will be sooooo busy salivating over getting rich on Y2K suits that they will forget to prepare and die off. Life could be good...

-- Sendem Tothemoon (no@lawyers.org), January 22, 1999.


Arnie ---- "can't have it both ways." Well, unfortunately, they probably will, but I am going to remember your point and incorporate it into my outraged posts about Y2K as appropriate. You are SO right.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 22, 1999.

I agree with Arnie that, while there's no such thing as a free lunch, there *is* such a thing as a stolen lunch.

But of course, be careful of what you wish for, it might come true. We might feel a certain vindictive glee if banks, insurance companies (or software vendors) bear the legal brunt (in dollars) of the problems they failed to fix responsibly. The result, given the probable levels of damages, would likely eliminate banking, insurance, and software entirely as economic entities -- they couldn't possibly make restitution. Is this really what we want? If you have a bank account and the bank goes broke because of legal damages, taking your account with it, will you be happy because they *deserved* it, dammit?

The total cost of y2k will and must be paid by everyone, though of course the more powerful will get off lightly -- isn't this what power is for, after all?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999.


CLICK

-- Html Collectors (kids@to.day), January 22, 1999.


Looks like this is relevant here. Pay attention Maria. From the Federal Reserve. http://www.frbsf.org/fiservices/cdc/news4/page3.html

"Promoting the Safety of the Currency Supply

As we count down to the year 2000, one of the issues being reported in the media is whether the U.S. currency supply is adequate for the century rollover. Media speculation that cash reserves might be depleted can lead to reactions we would like to avoid - public concern and hoarding of cash.

As part of the industry's proactive stance on year 2000 issues, financial institutions can play an important role in reassuring customers that the nation's money supply is not in jeopardy. All financial institutions may want to consider a communications campaign that focuses on the safety and soundness of money deposited in banks, credit unions, and savings and loans. An important component of that message is that customer deposits are insured to the legal limit by the FDIC and NCUA and will be fully accessible during the transition."

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 23, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ