Don't Look To Lawmakers For Year 2000 Relief

Please note: This Article appeared in the February 16, 1998 issue of Computerworld and was also online on Computerworld's website (http://www.computerworld.com/).

See an image of the article as it appeared in Computerworld

Recently, a bill was introduced in the California Assembly that would limit lawsuits resulting from "computer date failure" (the year 2000 bug to me and you). Plaintiffs could recover only for bodily injury and costs of correcting the problem itself.

Just what we don't need: legislatively protected irresponsibility.

This is bad law at its worst. Although perhaps well-intentioned, it would only foster more delays, procrastination and, ultimately, injuries and damages. If you live in California, call your elected representatives and stop A. B. 1710. Everyone else: Keep your eyes open for more of this legislative co-dependency.

I hope no lawsuits will be necessary because of the year 2000 problem. But I know that many organizations aren't dealing with it and that noncompliant products are still put on the market. People and institutions should face the consequences of their actions or inactions.

A Sunday school analogy: God loves you, but he will not repeal the laws of physics if you jump off a building. Pain avoidance, a great motivator, keeps most of us from jumping. Why should society's laws against negligence, irresponsibility and breach of trust be repealed where year 2000 is concerned? Take away the pain people suffer when caught being irresponsible and negligent, and you foster more irresponsibility and negligence.

Some argue that the threat of litigation diverts resources from year 2000 efforts. It's true that some resources are being used to demonstrate due diligence, but that is unavoidable whether laws are passed or not. Besides, such record-keeping is good project-management practice.

Others whine, "But such litigation will destroy the computer industry. We must protect our special interests." Hogwash. Johnson & Johnson's handling of the 1982 poisoned-Tylenol affair demonstrates that successful management of a corporate crisis calls for candor. By contrast, the current plight of tobacco companies shows that deception and special-interest protections aren't the best long-run business strategy.

IS doesn't need more excuses for inaction and procrastination. Government can help minimize year 2000-related injuries by pressing for responsible action, not through complicity with the irresponsible. The example government bodies should follow is that set by federal financial regulators such as the FDIC and Federal Reserve. Those groups are pressuring institutions to become year 2000 compliant or risk losing their charters.

What else might government do? Here are some ideas:

1. Extend statutes of limitations on recovery from year 2000-related damages. That will focus limited resources on mitigation rather than litigation and thereby reduce the need for the latter.
2. Offer antitrust exemption so enterprises can freely share year 2000 information.
3. Do everything possible to facilitate information sharing.
4. Extend tax relief on year 2000 repair costs.
5. Limit the liability of diligently compliant parties who are tenuously associated with negligent noncompliant parties.
6. Expand testing and certification efforts to help reduce risks to vital infrastructure.
7. Help with contingency planning and emergency management efforts.
8. But those who harm others because they fail to act should not be held harmless.

Never once did Mom say, "If you make a mess, I'll pretend it's not there." I think Mom was on to something.

Copyright 1998 by IDG Communications, Inc., 500 Old Connecticut Path, Framingham, MA, 01701. Reprinted by permission of Computerworld. Dr Kappelman can be reached by phone at 940-565-3110, by facsimile at 940-565-4935, and by email at kapp@unt.edu. Visit his website at http://www.unt.edu/bcis/faculty/kappelma/