Imported Data - Bank Computers Will Filter Out Noncompliant Dates, Bankers Say (Which Will Collapse the Banking System)

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

From Uncle Gazza...

Bank Computers Will Filter Out Noncompliant Dates, Bankers Say (Which Will Collapse the Banking System)

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/business-nf/biz21.htm

Comment: I guess bankers are as dense mentally as the general public. In this public meeting of spokesmen for numerous industries, bankers sought to reassure the listeners. They said that bank computers will screen out all noncompliant dates. But what about incorrect data? If Bank A's computer makes an inaccurate calculation and sends it to Bank B's computer, how will Bank B's computer recognize this as inaccurate? But, assuming that it can, it will reject the data. That means that a transaction will not be processed. All over the world, transcations will not be processed. That will require all such transactions to be corrected manually.

Manually. In banking. Got the picture? Every bad transaction. Daily.

No problem.

On the Main Categories Page of this site, the following has been posted for two years:

"I maintain that the y2k problem is systemic. It cannot be fixed. The interconnections are too many. A noncompliant computer will spread bad data and re-corrupt a compliant computer. They cannot all be fixed. There is no agreed-upon standard for even the placement of the century date. Either the noncompliant computers will re-corrupt the compliant ones, or else the compliant ones must cease all contact with noncompliant ones, thereby shutting down entire systems, most notably the banking system."

I am still waiting for anyone, on any site, to respond to this. [now's your chance Flint, Hoff, tell Gary how to fix this problem...]

This is from the Dallas MORNING NEWS (May 9).

* * * * * * * * * * *

The financial services sector is the most interconnected industry after telecommunications, Mr. Carrington said. But whether it's because of a slow economy or other reasons, equally sized banks in Japan have been spending a fraction of what their U.S. counterparts have on Y2K solutions.

"Various Asian nations appear to be dramatically behind," Mr. Carrington said.

However, panelists said the effect of bad data entering the U.S. banking system is not expected to contaminate the pool of a system that has been repaired. If a transaction with an incorrect date enters the system, they said, it would simply be rejected.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 14, 1999

Answers

Andy,

Interesting post. I believ you have over five years of experience with IT in the banking industry. In my opinion that makes you somewhat of an expert when it comes to IT and banking.

You said the following: I maintain that the y2k problem is systemic. It cannot be fixed. The interconnections are too many. A noncompliant computer will spread bad data and re-corrupt a compliant computer. They cannot all be fixed. There is no agreed-upon standard for even the placement of the century date. Either the noncompliant computers will re-corrupt the compliant ones, or else the compliant ones must cease all contact with noncompliant ones, thereby shutting down entire systems, most notably the banking system."

Based on the above statement, please give some examples of how noncompliant computers could corrupt compliant ones. Better yet, could you please give some examples on how noncompliant ones could produce corrupted data?

Thanks

-- Watcher5 (anon@anon.com), May 15, 1999.


Yep.

Go to the VISA is toast thread in the banking archives.

Do a search also using BANK or DATA in the banking , general, uncategorised threads.

You will see several discussions explaining my point of view.

Later,

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.


Well OF COURSE they'll catch the invalid DATES!! DUH!! But they CAN'T catch the data that is the result of CALCULATIONS using invalid dates. They may catch the ones that generate negative or wildly out of range data but incorrect and within reason are NOT mutually EXCLUSIVE!

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 15, 1999.


That's it in a nutshell Chuck.

A+

Now try and convince Flint and Hoff :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.


I am NOT a banker, and don't work with banking software. Those who do disagree, some saying a combination of bad data and rejected transactions will kill the system, and some saying that y2k errors *in practice* tend to be so flagrant that they'll be easily trapped and corrected if there aren't too many of them.

Will there be too many of them? My understanding is that there's considerable interbank testing going on domestically, but almost none with overseas banks. The status of these overseas banks is largely unknown, especially in South America, Asia and Africa. Unknown is never good, but not bad-by-definition. The portents are poor.

So once again we're in the position where we must fill in the blanks with *something*. My own position is that I expect manageable problems, but not strongly enough to trust my money to the banking system. I just don't know what else to do.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.



So what are you doing with your money, Flint?

Regards,

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), May 16, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ