Why cant artists do the same thing people who deal with hollywood do? Demand Audits, why would Hollywood be in business if everyone movie in history is runing at a loss? Even the guys at Lord of the Rings had to demand an Audit because thay were paid partly on profit and Hollywood was telling them the movie did not make money (as did the person who wrote Forest Gump)
If someome wants to pass a useful law, pass a damm law that holds Hollywood and lables to GAPP just like everyone else.
Heres the problem, Wierd Al tossed a few events in the portland area, at the Ticketmaster events, he sold out, BUT over half the seats were empty. The event holder was totly happy because it got 100% ticket sales, the fans were pissed because there paying well above market price for tickets (20 dollar tickets going for 100+) and Wierd Al is mad because he has an army of fans who want to come and cant get in because there not willing to pay scalpers AND hes mad because he has a ton of empty seats.
Now at non Ticket Master events his shows are standing room only, because eather tickets are ONLY sold at the door (several shows in Canada) or tickets are tied to a credit card (your card becomes your ticket and limits per card).
Ticket Master doing offical scalping just means more empty seats and difficulty attracting new fans by having prices in range of them (no im not paying 100+ to go to a group I have never heard of, but I will pay 20ish to see someone whos unknown to me)
Ticket sales are not only about geting the most money for a seat, there about attracting new fans to your act, which drives up CD, Itunes, and tshirt sales and allows you to grow your fan base.
Bands know that old fans are not worth as much as new fans, old fans already have all your CDs, new fans dont have anything yet.
My General Accounting point was this, in this specific case the auditor was PAID to audit a given service and just did not do it. Since the auditor did not even check the files for this then its a breach of contract and rightfully you can sue.
Audits have vary good records kept for just this reason, and those are turned in to the company requesting the audit (in fact you dont give the paperwork you dont get paid) As such the report could say that file storage was checked secure to some standard. To prove the case company will have to say that the auditor lied OR the auditor did not fufil the contract. The first one would be a easy case, the 2nd one would be much harder given the report was turned in and signed off as complete then later on something bad happend and there attempting to assign blame.
Liability contracts are a bad thing for anything short of not doing the damm job. The contract for the job will spell out in black and white what needs to be checked and backup paperwork needs to be done to ensure it was checked. So unless the contract said,"all file systems with sencitive data are safe even if physicaly stolen by a 3rd party" (or something like that) AND the auditor said yes thay are when it turned out that no it was not there is not much case AND there was an approved way signed off by the client for the auditor to follow.
Sadly auditors are one job where you must cover your own ass.
In Accounting the auditors job is to provide "reasonable assurance" The auditor is not accountable if for example...
Employees setup a false company including phone numbers, the auditor calls the company to see if a transaction was correct and the fake company says yes.
This is a clear case where the auditor would not be at falt, others may include less crazy things like, said company went bankrupt after doing business with the one under audit.
To say an auditor did something wrong in a computer sence would be vary hard, Attacks can come from inside/outside/bruteforce/employees/contractors. The auditor can provide reasonable assurance that each of the known issues are locked down or noted as a security risk (based on both how likly it is to happen and how much damage could happen if it was to happen) Then real resorces will be spent to fix those problems brought up. Of course even then the fix could have its own holes generating additional problems.
No accounting auditor will tell you that there audit is 100% foolproof, computers should not be any differnt.
Apples rejections are a lot easyer to understand, basicly IF something objectionable can be found on the net (on the big list of banned items) and your app talked to the unclean masses (the net) then you must filter out bad words. Of course what words are bad are up to Apple and there not telling.