iPlayer Radio What's New?
Listen
On Now : Afternoon Drama
Ghosts of Heathrow

Stephen Fry's In the Beginning was the Nerd

Tuesday 29 September 2009, 10:00

Nick Baker Nick Baker

Tagged with:

Nerds

The Western world, with a few notable exceptions, poured billions of dollars into electronic pesticides to defeat the Y2K bug. Only to find that for the most part it could have been defeated by turning the systems off then on again. Shades of the hit C4 comedy The IT Crowd. In reality it's the solution put forward in Stephen Fry's Archive on Four next Saturday by Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering at Cambridge University, a world authority. Here - exclusive to the blog - is the full interview Stephen conducted with Ross on the crisis that fizzled out and the prospects of a real future digital Armageddon:

So, why the silence when the bug didn't bite? The answer's in the programme. Politicians, experts and businessmen all profited in status or cash from the threat. In the media - to paraphrase the crime reporters - it bled so it led. In the USA, government brazenly claimed victory for its defeat. In reality, the enemy was almost totally imaginary. But it's useless blaming the great and the good. It was inevitable. We'd been told repeatedly that this brilliant new technology would change the world. Then we were told it could all stop on the stroke of one spookily special midnight. We were the newly addicted, suddenly faced with the prospect that our supply was fatally endangered. There was only one thing we could do. Panic. Then spend millions fixing it. Sorry, that's two things.

Nick Baker is Producer of In the Beginning was the Nerd.

Tagged with:

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 1.

    I understand your idea well.I will be back to read more interesting topics as one in this post.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 2.

    The 'problem' wasn't the Y2K bug, as we now know, but the fact that those dealing with the issue didn't know if there was a problem (at an individual machine/computer level) or what the problems would be if there was a problem. Yes, perhaps the Y2K bug was hyped but the "I told you that nothing would happen" response has been well and truly over-hyped, but heck it makes good radio - hindsight is a wonderful thing...

  • Comment number 3.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 4.

    As someone who spent three years, on and off, fixing the computer systems of a major British bank to MAKE SURE that it didn't fail after the Y2K switchover, I resent the suggestion that the work was unnecessary. The bug failed to have any major impact because people like me spent a lot of time fixing it. I can assure you that major banking systems, notably those which calculated interest payments, would have failed catastrophically if nothing had been done. We first encountered the problem when a charity with a 125-year peppercorn mortgage slipped into it's 100th year of payment around 1996. That caused total loans systems failure for a whole week and gave us a heads up about just how serious Y2K would be if we didn't hunker down and fix it. To have several years of work dismissed as "unnecessary" because WE FIXED THE PROBLEM and therefore the problem was never encountered by the common journalist, will encourage a dreadful culture of neglect. Stephen Fry should be ashamed to have his name attached to any suggestion that Y2K bugfix work was unnecessary.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 5.

    aoakley is right. I too worked on Y2K projects and can testify to the fact that major chaos would have occurred if time and money had not been invested to avert the problem. Maybe not planes falling from the skies and nuclear missiles being launched in error, but certainly substantial disruption to the economy.

    This whole issue is an example of mankind's tendency to swing from one extreme to the other with these issues. The problem was never as severe as some pople made out (end of civilisation etc.), but now, after the event, having successfully avoided 99.9% of the trouble that could have occurred through concerted effort and ingenuity, we're inclined to believe it was all a conspiracy and the problem never existed in the first place .

    The trouble with this is that the next time there is a pending crisis (global warming? species extinction?) people will pooh-pooh it as just another Y2K. That could be very dangerous.

    It's a kind of variation on the crying wolf story, only in this instance, the wolf did exist, but was successfully repulsed. Should we therefore ignore the next wolf?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 6.

    I was going around in 1999 talking about the Y2K issue and yes, I did say "don't worry too much" - my point being that if a computing device has no way to set the time/date, then it will have no idea whether it has changed to 2000, thus no problem.

    I was often faced with so-called experts and people from other vendors who seemed to use this as an excuse to upgrade people to the latest version of code by saying "we can't test all our old versions" - cynically building up the problem and business.

    In particular, I spoke in front of many health professionals who had heard about medical kit that would stop dripping medicines that should be dripped each minute - yet all much of this does is count 60 seconds and then drip, with no knowledge of time or date - sadly they often preferred to "pay safe" and upgrade than think logically, as being wrong wasn't an option.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 7.

    nhawthorn with your drip example you just don't know how the control software has been written. Just to say that all it does is count 60 seconds ignores the fact that in Software there is more than one way to skin a cat. The control software for the drips could have come from a more sophisticated system which had internal monitoring and data logging that was just turned off for this product. I can come up with about 10 different ways of triggering after 60 seconds and a few of them do require an external clock which would have been potentially vulnerable. Just because you can't set the time and date doesn't mean that the system hasn't got a factory set internal clock for timing purposes.

    Until we looked prior to Y2K nobody knew if a device would work or not at midnight on Jan 1st 2000. I know some organisations just bit the bullet and bought new equipment that had been tested but most of this was really just advance and held over equipment budgets from previous years.

    I and many others at the time found and fixed many bugs relating to Y2K and it was only due to hard work that prevented these errors from occurring.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 8.

    I worked for a medium sized company in London at the time. Our accounts dept used a well known payroll software package. Come Jan 1st 2001 it stopped working, the manufacturer had to send out a patch to fix it. For us the 2YK bug turned out to be real.

    One reason I think many think it was a wholly false scare was they thought their MS Office apps would be affected, but these were designed recently enough that MS had thought ahead and taken the Millenium into account. It was the big old mainframe (often bespoke) stuff that was mainly affectd.

  • Comment number 9.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 10.

    Yet people STILL treat anyone who expresses healthy scepticism towards Twitter or Facebook as luddites or 'sad' [i.e. pitiful..] or worse.

    It is worth reading 'Flat Earth News' for a good discussion about the media's role in spreading the Y2K hype - after all, have to keep those technology advertisers happy..

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 11.

    Like a few other people here, I too worked on a number of systems in the late 1990's to ensure that they would be ok on 1st Jan 20000. Also, like some others here, I resent the fact that the Y2K was a myth. There were plenty of systems that would have failed had a lot of people not worked to avoid this.

    Personally, having worked commercially in software development since the early 1980's, I have never and have still not, written any software that would fail at the turn of the century.

    However, it is very interesting to note how quickly people forget; am I the only one in IT who has noticed that we do not seem to have learnt the lesson of this as the two-digit year seems to be creeping back into IT systems!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 12.

    Aoakley has a very valid point about banks – among all the institutions involved in computing, banks have huge experience and expertise, for obvious reasons. When you hear the programme you’ll hear one of the first radio encounters with a banking computer was on “Have a Go” in the 1960’s. Interesting that aoakley was working on bug fixes for 3 years. We know that banking systems underwent constant upgrades over thirty years up to 2000, including on Y2K. Even then, as you’ll hear in the programme, there was a scare about swipe systems in December 1999.

    However, the multi-billion dollar question is: How much of the Y2K work and expenditure across all systems, private and public was necessary and how much was due to over-reaction, for whatever reason? How much was spent? These are questions never answered, or even addressed after the event. Perhaps because millennia are so, well, far apart. We don’t need to plan for the next one, although some of the lessons learned in 1999 are in Ross Anderson’s interview here. He’s the man BBC news interview when there’s talk of a war like internet attack from another country.

    How big and bad, exactly, was the wolf Petomane refers to, and was the fact he was going to spookily appear at midnight 1999, in the middle of the party, part of our reaction?

    Boilerplated puts it very well: “The 'problem' wasn't the Y2K bug, as we now know, but the fact that those dealing with the issue didn't know if there was a problem… or what the problems would be if there was a problem.”

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 13.

    Nick Baker, the programme's producer, left the comment above. Testbed is the name of the independent production company that made the programme for Radio 4.

    Steve Bowbrick, editor, Radio 4 blog

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 14.

    #12. At 4:39pm on 01 Oct 2009, testbed wrote:

    "Boilerplated puts it very well:"

    [FX]Blush...[/FX]

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 15.

    Looking forward to this! Unlike the knowledgeable folks who had serious responsibilities when rollover was approaching we just altered the RTC setting on our 2 (two!) PCs and rebooted to check that stuff was still running under Win98, a few months before the day. We were not using MS Office, rather Star Office, now available freely as OpenOffice.Org, thank goodness.
    But.... I was at a meeting in Santa Clara some 20 years earlier where the decision to only put 2 digits into the RTC (Real Time Clock) chip used by IBM in the PC was ratified.
    I can recall the mirth when the 2-digit issue was raised. 1999 was two decades in the future, and the chip industry was then only a few years old. We wre pretty young, too!
    Product life was brief then as now - as process technologies moved fast and new things became feasible.
    Happy days indeed. Ben


  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 16.

    lordBeddGelert is right - Flat Earth News by Nick Davies is very interesting on the Y2K affair. In it he says that the US State Department advised would-be travellers to certain Eastern European countries, who recklessly ignored the threat. Russia, says Davies, spent less than a single company - British Airways.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 17.

    Yes, lots of problems were found in the run up to 2000 AND SOLVED. I know of an insurance company who realised there was a problem and did the work something like fifteen years earlier. Certainly, the scare meant that some big projects were sold when small review projects may have sufficed, but there was a problem. I also know a computer security contractor who said his staff had to go out on new year's day 2000 to sort out real, urgent threats.

    Criticism of the government/media-advertised apocalypse is valid, but it's no different from a dozen such insults which go out every week.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    Y2K/Millennium bug was not a bug, nor was it a fault. Using two digits to save in databases saved millions in expensive storage. The fault, if any, was assuming that systems using dates or time based upon internal clocks would still be running by 2000. Systems where upgraded every 18 months and hardware was dropping in price.

    I started to code in a switch from 1989. When external systems where upgraded I had to change one byte and recompile. In 92 I was laughed at for suggesting that we code in the century - no one thought the programs or data would still be running.

    At one senior level meeting in 1996, at one of the UK's largest companies, someone furious of the costs shouted out "What idiot set these deadlines?"

    Many systems where only upgraded to get around, but not completely solving the problem, with dates time stamps stored as a 32 bit integer from 1970. Unix 32-bit systems for example have already started to hit this 19th January 2038 problem.

    Many control systems use chips that have dates that stop any time over the next few years. May be they will not be in use, may be no one will be bothered but many will be confused when it happens to them.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 19.

    Was the cost of fixing the Y2K too high? I wonder how many changes to the systems where undertaken under the budget and banner of investigation into the millennium bug. Getting extra budget for changes was easier if the request was worded around Y2K and would have been rejected otherwise.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 20.

    Interestingly http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/05/stephen-fry-y2k the the Guardian's tech guy was in short trousers at the time of the bug, and is therefore not able to give an opinion. Ours was a long-trousered view. Subminiature - was the cost too high? Nobody knows how much was spent. Hundreds of millions. But many argue that most of the work has been done already. Just before the weekend I spoke to another expert - with expertise in industry, academia and currently heading up a British University's computer security research unit - he felt then and feels now there was a huge amount of hype.

 

Page 1 of 2

This entry is now closed for comments

Share this page

More Posts

Previous
Desert Island Discs comes to iPlayer

Sunday 27 September 2009, 11:12

Next
Chain Gang on Radio 7 - drama that you write

Thursday 1 October 2009, 16:10

About this Blog

Behind the scenes at Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra from producers, presenters and programme makers.

Blog Updates

Stay updated with the latest posts from the blog.

Subscribe using:

What are feeds?

Follow Radio 4

Follow BBC Radio 4 & BBC Radio 4 Extra on Twitter for programme highlights and interesting retweets. 

Woman's Hour Power List 2014

Identifying the top ten game changers operating in the UK today.
See the latest on our blog
Find out about this year's panel and theme
Woman's Hour Power List judges, 2014 Woman's Hour Power List judges, 2014

 

Identifying the top ten game changers operating in the UK today.

 

See the latest on our blog

 

Find out about this year's panel and theme