Mitch Ratcliffe, star of stage (various Y2K panels), screen (ABCNEWS.COM), and of course the ever-popular ZDY2K Website, makes an offer: Daily Fix

So, let me make this offer. It's a one-time thing, so you would-be whistle-blowers out there listen up: I will help you out your employer, if you can provide the documents and contacts that will produce credible evidence of impending Y2K disasters. I protect my sources, but I have to be able to check them out, so I have to know who you are.

If you go public with your claims and are prosecuted or sued, I'll personally contribute $1,000 to your legal defense and help campaign for donations from the public in this column and elsewhere.

He makes an interesting point: postings like this one do seem to set off reactions similar to those annoying e-mail hoaxes, and share certain attributes with them. As with the Good Times "virus" and other such time-wasters, one must check sources and get some outside verification before taking any further action. "What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?"

And unless there have been a rash of such postings in a whole mess o' forums and lists, methinks Mitch lurks here in Yourdonville ever so often. Yo, Mitch. How 'bout them Sonics, eh? 8-}]

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 14, 1999

Answers

I cannot provide evidence of "impending Y2k disasters", but I sure can point to evidence of major problems. If I blow the whistle, $1,000 in legal aid won't even cover the retainer. Sorry, Mitch. I hope you do get some takers, though. Foot the entire legal bill, and I bet you'll get flooded with takers.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 14, 1999.

I just read his "offer". It ends thusly:

This offer applies to the first person to provide the substantive proof of a major Y2K problem that will lead to the failure of a company, a government agency or industry.

How, exactly, can this be proven before the fact? I suspect my company will have major problems, both internally and with its suppliers, but I also expect them to somehow limp through it. If a company fails, it is likely that Y2k will be the trigger, not necessarily the sole cause.

Even if someone takes Mitch up on his "offer", he wouldn't have to "pay up" until after the company fails, if I read him correctly. How many lawyers did he consult with before making this "offer"?

-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 14, 1999.

Every morning, the sun comes up in the East, and in the evening, it sets is tne West.

Sorry, no URL.

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), May 14, 1999.

But that doesn't mean it will tomorrow!

-- winna (??@??.com), May 14, 1999.

Folks, reread the challenge. I said that I would contribute $1,000 to a legal defense fund and help raise more, not pay for information. The latter is unethical and would encourage fabrication. What I am offering is the opportunity to expose a Y2K failure anonymously, and I am backing it up by offering to contribute assistance to the defense of my sources should they be caught. As I explained, I protect my sources, but if the whistle-blower is exposed, I'll be there to help.

This doesn't translate to "I'm paying $1,000 for information."

Re Sonics: Vin Weber better not get an $80 million contract after what he did this season -- that would be a sign that the end of the world was nigh.

-- Mitch Ratcliffe (godsdog@ratcliffe.com), May 14, 1999.

I believe you're referring to Vin Baker. Not a big hoops fan Mitch? You didn't respond to my other points, either.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 14, 1999.

Vin Weber is Vice Chairman for and writes a column for the National Review. The mixup does kinda clue us at to whom Mitch has been hanging with lately. [g]

Actually, if Weber had any kind of jumpshot, he'd probably be more help to the Sonics than Baker.

Or maybe it was just wishful thinking about Chris Webber...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 14, 1999.

Vice Chairman for "Empower America". Sorry for the fatfingers...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 14, 1999.

Here is the entire text, unedited:

http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/zdy2k/stories/0,6158,2259065,00.html May 14, 1999 Daily Fix: Scare tactics By Mitch Ratcliffe, ZDY2K

It seems that the fear-mongers just won't go away, no matter how little the Y2K problem produces in the way of real, noticeable problems in daily life. Thanks to the tireless emailing of Y2K de-bunker CPR, I note that several new claims that corporate and governmental preparedness is really just a sham have reared their heads.

Invariably, these claims come via anonymous postings on Y2K lists. Someone claims that they are an executive or engineer making a "six-figure" income who is preparing to quit their cushy job and blow the whistle on the hoax. Proportionally, the number of people making six-figure incomes is far lower than the apparently abundant number of would-be whistle-blowers who claim to make those salaries. Of course, they never actually do blow the whistle. Instead, the smoke blows away and no fires are exposed.

It's odd, when you think about it. These folks say they can afford to quit their jobs. They seem convinced that they will be surviving in a post-post-modern world, presumably without functioning legal systems where they might have to confront their former employers. All these real whistle-blowers have come forward facing much more severe legal consequences than the Y2K tattlers expect. And, yet, unlike whistle-blowers in every industry, from chemical processing to tobacco, automobiles, stock markets, agriculture, medicine, insurance, utilities, and, well, the list goes on and on, these Y2K canaries never sing.

Never. There's not one documented case of a current or former employee of a corporation or government agency delivering credible evidence of imminent Y2K failures. Nada. Not one. None.

It just doesn't make sense. Especially in light of all the whispers that someone is on the brink of coming forward with proof. You may think that the Smoking Man of The X-Files is out there keeping these whistle-blowers at bay, but you'd be wrong. It's awfully easy to give a reporter secrets, with supporting evidence.

I know. On several occasions in the early '90s, I received such information. It helped me break several stories about the National Security Agency's interference with public cryptography standards. When the Bush White House rewrote an Environmental Protection Agency report on the deleterious effects of electromagnetic fields to satisfy electric utilities and cellular telephone lobbies, I got the original document and used it to prove there was a cover-up. A tipster landed me the story of the "U.S. Card," a national identification card developed by the Postal Service and Department of Defense.

So, let me make this offer. It's a one-time thing, so you would-be whistle-blowers out there listen up: I will help you out your employer, if you can provide the documents and contacts that will produce credible evidence of impending Y2K disasters. I protect my sources, but I have to be able to check them out, so I have to know who you are.

If you go public with your claims and are prosecuted or sued, I'll personally contribute $1,000 to your legal defense and help campaign for donations from the public in this column and elsewhere.

If you don't believe me, ask Phil Zimmerman, the creator of Pretty Good Privacy, if I'm not good for my word. When he appeared on a panel that I moderated at the Digital World Conference with the FBI agent who was attempting to charge him with exporting strong cryptography, I repeatedly held up a sign with his legal defense fund's 800 number and repeated verbally it for good measure. Phil's a successful entrepreneur today, while that FBI agent led the fraudulent investigation of the crash of TWA Flight 800, exposed this week as a massive PR campaign to promote fears about terrorism. Phil won, big.

The Net has been a great medium for getting the word about Y2K out, and it has paid off in huge leaps in preparedness. It has also been the breeding ground for a lot of nonsense and hearsay. We need to clean that up, so that people can plan intelligently, based on real information. This offer applies to the first person to provide the substantive proof of a major Y2K problem that will lead to the failure of a company, a government agency or industry. Send your cards and letters now. Mitch Ratcliffe is the executive producer of ZDY2K.com, the Ziff-Davis Y2K Web site, and editor in chief and vice president of programming for ON24 Network, a streaming audio and video network for online investors.

-- tired (of@doomerlie.s), May 14, 1999.

Chicago Tribune, May 6, 1999:

The Federal Aviation Administration Wednesday warned that an order slowing traffic at O'Hare International and Midway Airports could lead to serious disruptions in air travel as the agency addresses problems with two radar systems that forced flight cancellations and may have contributed to a near-collision between two planes.

The mandatory air-traffic slowdown--which during the next three weeks will limit the number of planes arriving and departing from the Chicago region in peak morning and early evening periods--could have a major impact on airline schedules across the nation, particularly during poor weather, the FAA and airlines acknowledged.

Travelers at both Midway and O'Hare were inconvenienced Wednesday for several hours when flights were temporarily grounded because of "software glitches" in a radar program at the FAA's traffic control facility in Elgin, officials said.

United Airlines was forced to cancel 100 flights--25 percent of its daily schedule in and out of O'Hare. American Airlines canceled 34 flights, but reported long delays on many others. . . .

The computer bugs at the Elgin center involved an aircraft-tracking system that was returned to service only last month after being unplugged late last year because it repeatedly misidentified, or "ghosted," the location of planes on air-traffic controllers' screens. . . .

A revision of the software called ARTS 6.05 was loaded onto computers Tuesday night. But on Wednesday, vital information that tells controllers the identity, speed and altitude of airplanes began to temporarily disappear from radar screens, FAA and union officials said.

After efforts to fix the problem failed, FAA management and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association agreed to deactivate the finicky ARTS 6.05 system and replace it Thursday morning with a retired version, ARTS 6.04, which had a solid track record. However, the older system is not Year 2000 compliant, forcing the FAA to quickly correct the glitches in the new, Y2K-compliant ARTS 6.05 and get it back on-line soon, said FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro. . . .

At the Elgin facility, visual readouts on the radar screens, which identify and locate the position of aircraft, froze up for a few seconds at a time and dropped data before coming back up, the FAA said, requiring controllers to estimate the new positions of aircraft until the system recovered.

As a precaution, the FAA said, all aircraft at O'Hare and Midway were grounded and traffic already in the airspace controlled by Elgin was sent elsewhere until the problems stopped. . . .

The airlines are officially supporting the FAA's decision to slow the pace of operations. Behind the scenes, however, the Air Transport Association, which represents major U.S. carriers, has been pressuring FAA Administrator Jane Garvey to ease the restrictions, which are expensive for the airlines and frustrating for their customers experiencing long delays and missed connections.

"We're 60 to 90 minutes delayed," American spokeswoman Mary Frances Fagan said late Wednesday afternoon. "You're trying to push them out of here or turn them around to get out on time, but you can't make up that much time. You can only do your best."

I thought the FAA said everything was fixed several months ago and that they were fully compliant. You don't think they were LYING, DO YOU? Well, I'm SURE they'll get everything straightened out in time.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), May 14, 1999.

BAD JOKE OR THE MISANTHROPHIC PURSUITS OF A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING

Is this a joke? Mitch wants someone to possibly (outright) violate their confidentiality agreement with an employer or a client, risk their current employment or contract, risk their future employment or contracts, and you will personally contribute $US 1,000 to their legal defense fund? This is a bad joke. Assume that a reasonable estimate on legal fees for a decent legal defense team for a lost cause against a small company is about $US 50,000 or $US 1 million when going against a big firm. What about the settlement? Say someone privy to this kind of knowledge and documentation makes $US 40,000/year on the low end and $US 250,000/year on the high end (not highest end) and that this may very well mean an early retirement for the snitch. Do the math. This time, ask yourself how much that $US 1,000 represents of Mitch Ratcliffe's income for the year AND how much advertising income will be generated by such coverage. How "generous" is this offer? I don't think the word, "generous", can be used appropriately here -- even as sarcasm. And what does this say of Radcliffe's view of one's duty to uphold contracts and agreements... especially about confidentialty?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

P.S. And Radcliffe wants to talk about ETHICS?!

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 15, 1999.

Perhaps someone could give me a clue as to finding a list of the 78 reported cases pending regarding Y2K suits. This may shed light on individual failures already taking place.

Could also be prepositioning for the estimated $1 trillion in lawsuits being forecast.

Anyone know where to look for such a list?

-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 15, 1999.

this thread has to go back to the top!

The ULTIMATE in "PUT UP OR SHUT UP".

-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (egads!@nowayspammers.thanx), May 15, 1999.

mikeymac Here's a place to start:

http://www.ye ar2000.com/lawcenter/NFlawbytes.html

mb in NC

-- mb (mdbutler@coastalnet.com), May 15, 1999.

Hip Hoppocrite Hater,

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

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 16, 1999.