SarBox Lawsuit Could Rewrite IT Compliance Rules 124
dasButcher notes that the Supreme Court will hear arguments next week brought by a Nevada accounting firm that asserts the oversight board for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is unconstitutional. If the plaintiffs are successful, it could force Congress to rewrite or abandon the law used by many companies to validate tech investments for security and compliance. "Many auditing firms have used [Sarbanes-Oxley Section] 404 as a lever for imposing stringent security technology requirements on publicly traded companies regulated by SOX and their business partners. SOX security compliance has proven effective for vendors and solution providers, as it forces regulated enterprises to spend billions of dollars on technology that, many times, doesn’t prevent security incidents but does make them compliant with the law."
not found (Score:5, Funny)
I Know! (Score:5, Funny)
That seems like a wholly reasonable request, not too burdensome, and should improve security.
Re:Rule #1 of government.... (Score:3, Funny)
This is Slashdot I'm reading right?
Re:not found (Score:3, Funny)
I tried to look up this 404 thing, but I couldn't find it anywhere.
That's funny I found it all over the web. But I couldn't find anything else...
Re:not found (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rule #1 of government.... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:I Know! (Score:4, Funny)
You heard the man, noone use the Internet until this is done.
I don't see why the Noones [wikipedia.org] weren't allowed to use the internet before, or why they'll have to stop when this is over, but it's nice that you're willing to let them use it a little bit, I guess.
Or perhaps you meant "no one"?
Re:I Know! (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot is already patented, isn't it?
Re:Budgest re-adjustment... (Score:4, Funny)
And you get "Flame Wrong Orgy", which, strangely, doesn't seem all that unusual on Slashdot.