As reported in InfoWorld today by China Martens, Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, had some unkind words for portions of the Sarbanes-Oxley requirements.In particular “he described SOX Section 404 as a “nightmare” and extremely costly. That section requires a company’s auditor to attest to the effectiveness of internal controls implemented to protect financial reporting systems and processes,” wrote Martens.Unfortunately, Greenspan is articulating an all too prevalent attitude that believes computer systems, hardware, and software, should somehow be treated differently than any other tool used by accountants or other financial officers in a company. What else is the recent furor over electronic voting all about but that intelligent critics are saying how can you have a system that does not allow for a recount. It is illogical not to make the same demands on an electronic system that you expect from your paper system. Aren’t they supposed to be better, not worse?Does Greenspan want to exempt electronic accounting systems from thorough audits, which in this case requires auditors to understand the systems that created the numbers?Certainly when there were actual books used in bookkeeping, outside auditors needed to see the books in order to validate the numbers and check for discrepancies. It is and should be no different when the books are digital. Testing for the effectiveness of internal controls is no different than looking at the receipts and invoices and any other relevant paperwork to prove that the numbers are correct.Unless we maintain this mindset, instead of computers being a tool which we rule, it will rule us. Technology Industry