Y2K: Face the fear

 

08/18/98

 

By EDITORIAL

 

 

Five hundred days from today the year 2000 will dawn. Never in history has the mere turn of a calendar page been awaited with more uncertainty, bewilderment and -- to a growing extent -- fear.

 

The reason is the Year 2000 Problem -- Y2K for short -- which stems from a computer software industry practice in which programmers seeking to save costs and screen space used only two digits to indicate the year, with the computer assuming the first two digits are "19." When the numbers "00" appear in the date field on Jan. 1, 2000, the computer may think the date is Jan. 1, 1900. And information that was entered only a short time before may suddenly appear to exist 99 years in the future.

 

For a long time, government agencies and private organizations have been racing to fix the problem. But it is so complex and widespread, and the response it demands is so labor-intensive and time-consuming, that many experts are warning that the work won't be accomplished to the necessary extent by the deadline.

 

Because computers so powerfully affect virtually every aspect of our daily lives, a failure to complete the task will cause trouble. The full extent and nature of this trouble are unknown, and that very lack of knowledge is feeding the public's mounting concern. Worst-case scenarios described by millennium doomsayers involve systems failures, even a breakdown of basic services, that could lead to civil chaos.

 

* * *

 

In such a situation, the need for leadership is acute. Government and community leaders at all levels must see the challenge as much more than a technical one. They must deal directly and effectively with the apprehensions of the public.

 

A major problem is that politicians and people in business are reluctant to even discuss the possibility of failure -- the possibility that everything won't be A-OK. Pols don't want to frighten constituents; employees don't want to frighten bosses; corporations don't want to frighten investors; lawyers don't want clients to admit to potential liability.

 

The public senses this, and disbelieves a lot of the assurances that all will be well. Early predictions of compliance by several federal agencies turned out to be wildly optimistic, according to the General Accounting Office. Both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense certified dozens of systems as Y2K-compliant; because these agencies' responsibilities are among the most critical of all, the subsequent disclosure that they hadn't actually checked or fixed the systems shook a lot of confidence.

 

Another problem is that of interdependency. One system may be in good shape, but it may be brought down by a linked system's failures. The awareness of this cascading effect is growing.

 

What could develop is an environment in which the public simply doesn't believe the "everything will be fine" rhetoric. In such a climate, many people will worry about their personal physical and financial security first, and when the time comes will act in such ways -- withdrawing cash deposits, selling stock, hoarding, fleeing the cities, etc. -- that could lead to a collective mass panic.

 

The task facing government officials and leaders of vital industries -- banking, finance, telecommunications, utilities -- is to level with the public. They should convince us that they are doing everything in their power to head off the problem. But they also should acknowledge that it's possible they won't succeed, or that somebody else's failures will screw up their own systems. And, in that case, they should offer credible assurance that they have considered every detail, inventoried resources, arranged to share information widely, and crafted comprehensive backup plans. Lowell, Mass., for instance, has a Y2K community preparedness organization whose efforts to make Lowell a "Y2K safe haven" could well serve as a model.

 

* * *

 

Victor Porlier, an expert on Y2K, calls on all elected officials and candidates to develop their own expertise, and quickly. It's vital, he emphasizes, that politics be put aside for the common good. "It is up to government at every level," Mr. Porlier writes, "and particularly state and local governments, to get a clear picture of where each stands, to formulate explicit remedies on realistic timetables, to develop contingency plans, and to be prepared to provide progress reports to the electorate until we have all landed as safely and as fully functioning as possible in the year 2000." He's right. It's 500 days and counting.