4 ms·

The problem is we have everything recorded digitally, managed with software and hardware of needlessly inflated complexity, mostly running on the least reliable

The problem is we have everything recorded digitally, managed with software and hardware of needlessly inflated complexity, mostly running on the least reliable OS ever (Windows), always connected to the Internet. I would never allow any of my medical data to be digitized, but I have never been asked. I would never use an Internet-connected Windows PC to manage any critical machinery. I don't want my printer to order inks for itself. I would rather avoid modern libraries which add dozens megabytes of complexity to make trivial things look fancy. Oftentimes the optimal solution is not to add something (like another layer of encryption and automation) but to remove and make things simpler.

est31 5y ago
Even if it's not connected to the internet but runs on a completely and perfectly airgapped network, when your sensitive data fit on a single USB stick, it's extremely hard to protect them, simply because of logistics. In the pre-digital age you could maybe steal individual records, but stealing large mountains of papers would have alerted the security guards. Nowadays you can carry truckloads of data in your pocket.
- WanderPanda 5y ago
  But lets also not forget that it is amazing that we can carry truckloads of data in our pockets nowadays :)
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    Don't forget there already is a new tape technology which lets you fit so much data you can hardly even imagine.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I object to your characterization of Windows as "the least reliable OS ever". What Windows is, is popular, and that's for a lot of reasons but one of them is that it is actually quite good at being a desktop PC OS, unlike some other operating systems I could mention. The same things that make it a good desktop (like say, not having to recompile software every two years to get it to run on the latest version) also make it slightly easier to trick users into running things they shouldn't, and of course allows less advanced users to have more control in the first place, which combined with its popularity lead to a large number of infections. Otherwise I agree with what you're saying, software (and hardware to a certain extent) is far more bloated and complicated than it needs to be.
ghaff 5y ago
The problem is that the alternative to medical records being digitized is lots of paper files and faxes and the general difficulty of switching records to a new doctor. So in fact there is a big push to digitize things in standard formats which has its own set of problems but the paper-based methods don't really work.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  When I was a schoolboy all my medical records were hand-written in a notebook I carried with me every time I went to another medical specialist (and I visited a lot - my health was way below the norm) and nobody used fax machines or duplicated anything. I really want my medical data to only exist in single instance like during those days.
chrischapman 5y ago
> Oftentimes the optimal solution is not to add something (like another layer of encryption and automation) but to remove and make things simpler. I like that. It sounds so much like the de Saint Exupery quote: "perfection is attained, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". We need a lot more of that.

est31 5y ago

Even if it's not connected to the internet but runs on a completely and perfectly airgapped network, when your sensitive data fit on a single USB stick, it's extremely hard to protect them, simply because of logistics. In the pre-digital age you could maybe steal individual records, but stealing large mountains of papers would have alerted the security guards. Nowadays you can carry truckloads of data in your pocket.

WanderPanda 5y ago
But lets also not forget that it is amazing that we can carry truckloads of data in our pockets nowadays :)
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  Don't forget there already is a new tape technology which lets you fit so much data you can hardly even imagine.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

I object to your characterization of Windows as "the least reliable OS ever". What Windows is, is popular, and that's for a lot of reasons but one of them is that it is actually quite good at being a desktop PC OS, unlike some other operating systems I could mention. The same things that make it a good desktop (like say, not having to recompile software every two years to get it to run on the latest version) also make it slightly easier to trick users into running things they shouldn't, and of course allows less advanced users to have more control in the first place, which combined with its popularity lead to a large number of infections. Otherwise I agree with what you're saying, software (and hardware to a certain extent) is far more bloated and complicated than it needs to be.

ghaff 5y ago

The problem is that the alternative to medical records being digitized is lots of paper files and faxes and the general difficulty of switching records to a new doctor. So in fact there is a big push to digitize things in standard formats which has its own set of problems but the paper-based methods don't really work.

qwerty456127 5y ago
When I was a schoolboy all my medical records were hand-written in a notebook I carried with me every time I went to another medical specialist (and I visited a lot - my health was way below the norm) and nobody used fax machines or duplicated anything. I really want my medical data to only exist in single instance like during those days.

chrischapman 5y ago

> Oftentimes the optimal solution is not to add something (like another layer of encryption and automation) but to remove and make things simpler. I like that. It sounds so much like the de Saint Exupery quote: "perfection is attained, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". We need a lot more of that.