[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Full-disclosure] SOX whistleblower requirements challenged in court? (Was SOX whistleblowers' clause Compliance)
- To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [Full-disclosure] SOX whistleblower requirements challenged in court? (Was SOX whistleblowers' clause Compliance)
- From: "Jesse W. Asher" <jasher1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 06:55:07 -0500
I was curious about the mention of "the SOX whistleblowers requirements
have been challenged in court". Can anyone provide more information on
this? What has challenged and why? Thanks!!
From: Madison, Marc [mailto:mmadison@xxxxxxxx]
IANAL, But IMO use an Intranet web page that allows employees
to submit
anonymous html post to the web server via html. Now if your security
policy is pervasive then surely auditing is enabled on all
your systems,
thus removing any anonymity this would have provided. Have you
considered, dare I say, outsourcing? I only say this since
part of the
requirement calls for the company to provide sufficient anonymity to
individuals reporting issues. By the way the SOX whistleblowers
requirements have already been challenged in court so there might be
precedence on what is sufficient.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/