The following is posted here for educational discussion purposes only.
The ZD story is linked here: ZDnet

Government falls victim to Y2K -- it thinks

Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:18:34 GMT
Jane Wakefield

Is it a bug, or isn't it? Don't ask the Office of National Statistics, it's a load of trash... Jane Wakefield reports

The government admitted to ZDNet UK News Tuesday that it has been the victim of the millennium bug -- although it is still confused about how to recognise exactly what a millennium bug is.

The Office of National Statistics confirmed it experienced a "date change glitch", which saw computers in registry offices up and down the country printing incorrect dates on birth certificates. Anybody requesting a birth certificate after January 1 2000 were sent hand written copies because affected computers printed out copies dated 2200.

Initially a spokesman claimed it had nothing to do with the millennium bug. "This is a non-millennium problem, it is a software issue. It is not about hardware or embedded software," he said. Later the same spokesman admitted it might be a Y2K issue. "It has very little to do with the millennium bug," he said.

Later the spokesman conceded it was impossible to tell what caused the problem. "I can't tell you it is definitely not [a millennium bug issue]. Who is to say what is and what isn't," he said. "It is a very trivial error. The idea that thousands of babies have got hundred year old birth certificates is complete trash," he said.

A Cabinet Office spokesman was more willing to put the glitch down to Y2K. "This is the type of minor glitch we thought likely to occur," he said. He also admitted there had been others, but could only offer one solid example. "Aberdeen weather centre found the bug had affected its observation equipment. They phoned in the weather reports while the equipment was fixed," he said.

-- It's Me (Not@here.com), January 19, 2000

Answers

Yup, it was clearly a Y2k-related problem, but this story proves just how far authorities and PR flacks will go to claim it wasn't Y2K. Kinda spoils the credibility of all those other "it's not Y2K" claims.

-- Cee Bee (ceebee@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Some of these folks might be honestly confused. After all the rollover hype, they think THAT was the y2k bug, and everything else is just normal computer problems. This spokesman started by saying "this is not hardware or embedded software", perhaps because that's all he thought the Y2k bug was.

I bet he knows lots more about the y2k problem now than he did a couple days ago.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), January 19, 2000.

"Embedded software". LOL!

-- Y2KGardener (govegan@aloha.net), January 19, 2000.

The idea that thousands of babies have got hundred year old birth certificates is complete trash," he said.

Anybody requesting a birth certificate after January 1 2000 were sent hand written copies because affected computers printed out copies dated 2200.

He is absolutely correct.. They won't be born for another 200 years !!!! LMAO !!!! :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), January 19, 2000.

confirmed it experienced a "date change glitch"

nothing to do with the millennium bug. "This is a non-millennium problem, it is a software issue. It is not about hardware or embedded software,"

"It has very little to do with the millennium bug,"

-----

Is it just me, or is this the biggest DUH that we've seen yet?

I can't believe it. How do you spell DENIAL???

Tick... Duh... Tock... <:00= ...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), January 19, 2000.