RE: [Full-disclosure] SOX whistleblower requirements challenged in court? (Was SOX whistleblowers' clause Compliance)

["Madison, Marc" <mmadison@xxxxxxxx>]

"Challenged" may not have been the appropriate word, again IANAL, google
sox+whistleblower+court.


Or if you trust me then just click on the below link  ;)

www.nixonpeabody.com/linked_media/publications/ELA_12282004.pdf




-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jesse W.
Asher
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 5:55 AM
To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Full-disclosure] SOX whistleblower requirements challenged in
court? (Was SOX whistleblowers' clause Compliance)


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/


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/