It’s almost an expectation, now, to digitize everything. I remember how much I valued writing my notes in class by hand, and this year I’ve “upgraded” to typing as much as I can. Scan receipts, save emails, all tucked away in special folders on my computer. There’s an argument to both sides: save resources and reduce material use by digitizing — also automate things and reduce spend. On paper, maybe you can tuck everything away where no one will find it. But can’t a lock can be hacked as much as a network system can?
I can think of many software companies that have been “hacked,” but that’s just the nature of the medium. Software companies like Meta and Google need to put in extra cost and resources to protect their services. Companies or systems that don’t traditionally use software might need some more advising before getting to that level. The first thing that comes to mind is the School of Medicine cybersecurity incident that happened last year — a data breach that involved file-sharing of sensitive information (names, addresses, Social Security numbers, etc). Obviously a deal like this is very dangerous. Could it have been avoided if these assets were not digitized?
Keeping patient data (and any data) digital is great for organizational purposes. You have almost unlimited space, and can find everything with ease. This might be crucial for patients and for research in matters that are time-sensitive. You can hire people who know how to use the software and keep it managed/up-to-date instead of people who need to sift through file cabinets. And let’s not get started on paper usage.
But the risks are so high! So what needs to be kept online and what doesn’t? Sensitive data like that can be kept in a decentralized, encrypted manner. I argue that putting more security efforts to manage data like that might be more worthwhile than reverting to the old-school method of pen and paper, when dealing with large amounts of information. For small, but very important assets (like passwords, family recipes, the business plan), these can be kept secure physically. That still involves risk, but the trust of humans is now at play, rather than the trust of strangers. You might need to be more wary of who you keep in your inner circle.
The situation with Sara speaking up is one that I’m sure more women endure. There’s no place for discrimination in the workplace, or silencing. In a period of uncertainty, all opinions need to be welcome, so we can explore all possible outcomes. If Sara had not spoken up, they might have just gone with extra cybersecurity measures without thinking about the impact on investors and on future spending. Having options is never a bad thing, although it can seem like it when it stretches the brain too much. I’m sure that’s how the CEO felt: Another thing to think about…?
