[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAANASp/bip1hHgg1O1cfiAEPCgAAAEAAAAMSRSOC8AwBFun1BJ8aFMswBAAAAAA==@online.gateway.strangled.net>
Date: Fri Dec 2 03:57:01 2005
From: aditya.deshmukh at online.gateway.strangled.net (Aditya Deshmukh)
Subject: Re: SOX whistleblowers' clause Compliance
See below marc email part
>> Aditya Deshmukh [aditya.deshmukh@...ine.gateway.strangled.net] wrote:
>>
>>If you read the last line in para 6 you will find that anon
>> mailbox is
>> a requirement for SOX compliance.
>>
>> >And mailbox was ment for email Michael :)
>>
>> >But I think that "with a post and some concrete" mailbox
>> will be Indeed
>> be far more secure.....
> From: Madison, Marc [mailto:mmadison@...i.com]
> 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.
You must be a mind reader - you just read my mind. And google search shows
Some email providers giving out this service for about US$ 89.99.
Maybe that is the best solution after all...
You don't break your security policy and the auditors are also happy.
________________________________________________________________________
Delivered using the Free Personal Edition of Mailtraq (www.mailtraq.com)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists