[IP] more on Retrospective analyses of Y2K
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Synthesis: Law and Technology"
<synthesis.law.and.technology@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 31, 2006 3:34:25 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder@xxxxxxxxx >
Date: May 31, 2006 2:35:06 PM EDT
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: brian.randell@xxxxxxxxx, dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxx http://www.opus1.com/jms Opus One
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as synthesis.law.and.technology@xxxxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/