- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I'm not usually one for slamming on articles on the web but this one is really horrible.
First off, he blew credibility with me by introducing the term "sarbox". I thought, maybe my company is the oddball, but it's SOX to us and to our consultants. I was involved in the SOX process, never heard the term "sarbox" before this article.
A little research on Google. There are about 124,000 articles with the terms "Sarbanes-Oxley" and "sarbox" but not "sox". There are 1.8 million with "Sarbanes-Oxley" and "SOX" but not "sarbox". So my perception is correct, SOX is by far the preferred term in the real world.
Kind of trivial, but like I said, it blows his credibility as having actually talked to any business people about it.
Then - who on earth thought that SOX was going to bring an era of enlightened business people who only seek to serve? People at those levels are power hungry greed-heads. That's how they got there, that's never going to change. A good law is one that changes would-be crooks behaviour. Change their attitudes? Keep wishing.
So later in the article when he mentions that Eagletech was actually caught because they didn't fulfill their SOX requirements, I would call that a success of the legislation. One bad guy who didn't manage to weasel past loopholes in the legislation.
As far as the excuse mentality, again, what did you really expect? Of course they're going to blame others, of course some news media will report the excuses and take it seriously, and some people will believe it.
SOX has added layers of bureaucracy to my company, making it hard for an IT guy to get his job done sometimes. I question its value on those grounds. But this article provides no argument against its effectiveness, and only evidence for its success in the case of Eagletech.
