more on Retrospective analyses of Y2K

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Synthesis: Law and Technology"  
<synthesis.law.and.technology () gmail com>
Date: May 31, 2006 3:34:25 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Retrospective analyses of Y2K

Dave,

I think the big difference between Y2k and the current SarbOx/GLBA   
is there is no need to 'prove' the existence of a problem this time  
round.  The regulatory requirements are there.   Some of us spent a  
good part of 1997 and 1998 on the road talking to CEOs CFOs and then  
Fortune 500 counsel just to get them to understand the extent of the  
problem and its potential downside.    In this respect I think Y2k  
was a problem that was far less understood all along.
 "Will my planes fall out of the sky on January 1st?"
"Probably not"
"Well I dont have to worry about it then. Allocation denied"
"but wait!!!!!!!!!! they might fall a day a week or months later if  
the routine maintenace you were supposed to schedule doesn't happen  
because the system thinks it has almost 100 years to wait"
"oh.............."

compare that with "If you are not compliant then...."

In response to the original question I think the Y2K problem was  
relatively well handled, but there was a lot of work involved and it  
went way beyond just replacing PCs on every desktop.  Massive  
remediation and contingency planning efforts were required.


Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec
J9B 1N1



On 5/31/06, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder () Opus1 COM >
Date: May 31, 2006 2:35:06 PM EDT
To: doug () dougcarmichael com
Cc: brian.randell () ncl ac uk, dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Retrospective analyses of Y2K

Doug:

I strongly agree with the 'shifting budget' argument.  I have long
said that one of the reasons that people saw such a slowdown is that
there was this enormous bump of people refreshing ALL their PCs and
servers in 98/99 and then they just didn't need to buy them in
2000/2001/2002.  So if you looked at the graph up to 99, you
predicted a lot of "hockey stick up and to the right" spending, which
was really anomalous.

I'm not sure how much that can be blamed for other ills within the
economy, but I think your argument is supportable (with other
evidence, of course).

I have taken the current SarbOx/GLBA and associated a new phrase with
it; I have been using it in lectures: "It's Y2K all over again."
This means that people are able to go into their CFO's office, throw
a Purchase Requisition under his/her nose, and say "this is for
regulatory compliance" and BOOM out comes the cash.

So the question to research (and fairly quickly) is: is this true?
And, if so, can your conclusions about Y2K spending be fast-forward
applied to 2005/2006 spending in IT?  Is there another boom/bust that
technology companies, especially those in the security space, are
going to see?

I suspect not entirely, because regulatory compliance is of smaller
scope than "every single company in the world," but there is some
parallel.

jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Phone: +1 520 324 0494 (voice)  +1 520 324 0495 (FAX)
jms () Opus1 COM     http://www.opus1.com/jms    Opus One


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as synthesis.law.and.technology () gmail com
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/



--


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/