5 ms·
The doctor is not the customer. The doctor and security personnel are coworkers in a business where the customer is the patient who is being treated and who's s
by txcwpalpha 7y ago
The doctor is not the customer. The doctor and security personnel are coworkers in a business where the customer is the patient who is being treated and who's sensitive data is being stored.
It is indeed the shared responsibility of the security team to keep in mind that the customer requires quality medical care, and security should not interfere with that. Similarly, it is also the shared responsibility of the doctor to keep in mind that the customer also requires that their data remain secure, and their ludditism should not interfere with that, either.
- kjs3 7y agoSaid much better than I could.
- matz1 7y agoSo the doctor has to ensure security in addition of treating patient? Why do we need security professional then ?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kjs3 7y agoYes, everyone has to participate in ensuring security; how completely divorced from reality do you have to be to think otherwise. And we need security professionals to remind everyone that security is important and we all have to be part of ensuring it.
- matz1 7y agoSure but if it become annoying then most people, including me will choose convinience over security every time. That's where I critize security professional. They often disregard this end user pain. You have to find frictionless solution and shouldn't impact their productivity.
- txcwpalpha 7y agoIt is your responsibility to participate in the security of your customer's information. It is your fault if you "choose convenience over security". It is not anyone else's fault. Ask yourself how you would feel if your bank just let someone access your account and steal your money. Would you forgive them if the bank said "well it would have been really annoying to have to check the person's identity before letting them take the money, so we chose convenience over security"? Of course not. Security professionals are there to guide you and make security tools easier and less intrusive for you to use (and believe me, they want to make it easier for you, if only for the entirely self-serving reason of reducing the amounts of complaints they get), but even if the security tools are hard to use, it is your responsibility to still use them. You are not doing your job if you disregard them, and "it's annoying" is absolutely, 1000% not an excuse for potentially exposing the sensitive information of every one of your customers.
- matz1 7y agoTrying to shift security to end user wouldn't improve security. Most people value convenience over security. Then the bank is not doing a good job. Its the bank responsibility to secure my account. How they do it is up to them . I don't really care what method they use as long as from my perspective its frictionless and not annoying. If you make security tools that is hard to use, then you are not doing a good job, be prepare for push back and consequently less secure environment.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- martyvis 7y agoAs recently as maybe 20 years ago we learned a lot patient infection in hospital was caused by patient-to-doctor-to-patient transfer. Things like disposable gloves and hand cleaning stations at every bed were resisted by doctors initially as being over the top. Now they are ubiquitous once the benefits were proven. Maybe the same approach for IT as for germ security can be demonstrated, and that everyone needs to participate.
- brigandish 7y agoIf people are supposed to look after their own health, why do they need doctors?