Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flatsville who wrote (3883)	2/15/1999 8:43:00 AM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

A legal opinion from a South African lawyer on the legal worth of compliance letters/statements: --------------------------------- PR-Assurances-Illusory South African Press Association's PR WIRE SERVICE Issued by: Dave Gray Publications Attention: Financial Editors For immediate release: MILLENNIUM COMPLIANCE LEGAL ASSURANCES "ILLUSORY" ‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹ "Millennium compliance" letters in which corporates request suppliers and associates to declare that they are Year 2000 compliant, will in many cases prove to be unenforceable in law, a leading South African law firm has warned. They generally fail to properly define what year 2000 compliance means in the context of the enquiry. Yet there appears to be a blind belief that they were "panaceas for all Y2K ills" and that a signed statement of compliance conferred some magical legal rights on the sender in the event of a Y2K mishap. Mark Heyink, a partner in the Johannesburg law firm Hofmeyr Herbstein Gihwala Cluver & Walker Inc., describes the scenario as the "Compliance Letter syndrome". Heyink says most such letters are vague and request that the responding company be "year 2000 compliant" at a particular date, but do not define compliance and do not request assurance that such compliance is maintained beyond the millennium."This indicates scant understanding of the true problem," he says. "Many will believe that they are placing themselves in a position to enforce a legal right. However in most instances that I have seen, little care is taken as to who signs the letter and whether that individual has the correct authority to bind the recipient organisation. "In many cases, even assuming the rights created by the letter are enforceable, the signatory may not have the requisite authority. "Even if the signatory were to incur personal liability as a result of his or her actions, this will serve as cold comfort in the case of a large claim. "In such circumstances, one can only warn the perpetrators of this shotgun approach that any comfort they may take out of their efforts is probably illusory. "Clearly insufficient consideration is being given to the objectives that the senders of all but a few of these compliance letters wish to achieve. "Further, little care is being taken by the senders in ensuring that the objective is being correctly achieved. "A more constructive approach would be for executive management to exercise their responsibility properly in assessing those relationships important to the enterprise¹s business continuity. In most instances these critical business relationships should be confirmed by proper communication and where necessary negotiation. "The often "threatening" tone of compliance letters and the fact that the recipient may have no legal duty to give the information let alone the warranties that are often demanded, is not conducive to the co-operation that the year 2000 phenomenon demands . "On the other hand, on the recipients side, the prevailing tendency is to automatically refer the compliance letter to IT for reply, only emphasising the point that these letters are being dealt with incorrectly. "Furnishing a warranty at the best of times demands prudence particularly when there may be no good legal reason for doing so. At least however, in the case of, say a motor vehicle warranty, the issuer of the warranty understands his commitments and it is a legally enforceable agreement which has precedents. "In the case of Y2K warranties, for that is what they are, not only do these letters fail to spell out the meaning of compliance, they essentially ask IT to undertake that they will do their job properly without considering the potentially disastrous consequences of their possible failure to do so. "This is an unfortunate abdication of responsibility on the part of management and proper consideration by management of not only the technical issues but any others that may influence their ability is essential and in fact the duty of management . "Moreover, according to an international study by the Gartner group as much as three trillion dollars of litigation will flow as a result of non Y2K compliance. "Given the magnitude of this scenario, much greater emphasis should be placed on addressing some of the legal issues, before compliance letters are issued willy nilly and accepted with equal alacrity." "Compliance letters may well have there place in a year 2000 strategy but their use must be carefully considered if they are to achieve their goal." For further information call Mr Heyink at 027 11 286-1100 (from the South African Press Association's public relations wire service)

To: flatsville who wrote (3883)	2/15/1999 2:43:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

German informatics professor: 'Y2k security of German nuclear power plants 'doubtful' ____________________________ 'Top-Informatiker Prof. Brunnstein: "Y2K-Sicherheit der deutschen AKW's ist extrem zweifelhaft!" HAMBURG, 12.2.99 (©www.zeitbombe-jahr2000.de/PN/Eigenbericht - Verwendung nur unter Angabe der Quelle gestattet) Wie ZEITBOMBE-JAHR2000.DE gestern aus der Abteilung ET des TÜV Bayern in München erfuhr, haben die deutschen AKW's von der "Gesellschaft für Reaktorsicherheit" (GRS) erst im Juli 1998 die sog. "Weiterleitungsnachricht - 4/98" erhalten. Mit deren Empfang wurden alle AKW-Betreiber und atomrechtlichen Aufsichtsbehörden offiziell angehalten, die Y2K-Problematik bei ihren Sicherheitschecks ab sofort mit zu berücksichtigen. [Die GRS selbst spricht nur von einer "Empfehlung" zur "Überprüfung". Auszug aus der o.a. Webseite der GRS: " Die GRS hat am 15. Juli 1998 im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit allen Kernkraftwerksbetreibern und zuständigen Landesbehörden zum Thema 'Datumsumstellung zur Jahrtausendwende' eine sogenannte Weiterleitungsnachricht übermittelt. Darin wird empfohlen, alle computergestützten Einrichtungen in den Kernkraftwerken systematisch zu überprüfen."] Nach Aussage des Hamburger Informatikers und anerkannten Y2K-Experten Prof. Klaus Brunnstein, kommt der "Startschußtermin" Juli 1998 für die Y2K-Prüfung bei den AKW's "in jedem Fall zu spät", da Anlagen dieser Größenordnung eine Test- und Neuimplementierungsphase von mindestens 24 - 36 Monaten für Y2K-empfindliche Programme, Prozeßrechner und eingebettete Mikroprozessoren benötigten. Schon die ausreichende Verfügbarkeit von Know-how sei "zweifelhaft", so Brunnstein. Einen lückenlosen und objektivierbaren Nachweis, daß die AKW's etwa, wie von deren Betreibern behauptet werden könnte, schon weit vor der offiziellen Aufforderung durch die GRS mit ihren Y2K-Vorbereitungen begonnen hätten und somit noch in der Zeit liegen könnten, hätten die AKW-Betreiber allerdings bisher nicht erbracht. "Die AKW's befinden sich derzeit kaum jenseits der Inventurphase. Sie müssen aber nicht nur den 1.1.2000 berücksichtigen sondern auch noch andere Risikodaten wie z.B. den 9.9.99. Viele Programme verstehen diese Zeichenfolge als Aufforderung zum Abschalten der Rechenprozesse". Die Y2K-Aufgaben der AKW-Techniker bestehen nach Aussage des Wissenschaftlers in 1. der systematischen Bestandsaufnahme der jeweiligen Anlage, 2. der Risikoanalyse und der Festlegung daraus folgender Maßnahmen, 3. der Einleitung wichtigster Maßnahmen, 4. in systematischen Tests einzelner Komponenten und des ganzen Systems, 5. in der Endanpassung und der Festlegung von Notfallmaßnahmen. "Dies zusammengenommen heißt: sie dürften es nicht schaffen, pünktlich fertig zu werden", so Prof. Brunnstein zu ZEITBOMBE-JAHR2000.DE. Eine Stellungnahme der Hamburgischen Elektrizitätswerke (HEW) war zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung dieser Meldung leider nicht zu erhalten. Eine Stellungnahme der BAYERNWERKE in München ist nach Auskunft der Pressestelle faschingsbedingt nicht vor Donnerstag kommender Woche zu erwarten. X X X X X zeitbombe-jahr2000.de