> None of those measures do anything to prevent someone from taking a picture of the screen, which is the same sinking boat you describe.
But it's relatively easy to only have the people that need specific information to have it. Receptionist only has your names and contact information; doctor only has your relevant medical information; etc etc.
With paper, either everything will be together in a big file, or it would be very impractical to manage.
> My argument would be that care is more easily achieved by smaller groups working on smaller populations using fewer components.
Potentially. Or they'll improvise because they're a small operation and there's trust. Many a small company has been caught with terrible physical or digital security, because nobody cares and at their scale dedicated people to care don't make sense.
> But it's relatively easy to only have the people that need specific information to have it.
Which brings us back to...
> "Privacy" until a disgruntled staffer copies or takes a picture or just takes the pieces of paper and publishes them.
With paper, it's primarily about the trust you place in people.
With digital it is not only the trust you place in people, you add the trust required for the systems you use; not only the ones you select, but the ones they depend on.
Across a range of systems, we are seeing that we haven't yet mastered complexity.
> Many a small company has been caught with terrible physical or digital security, because nobody cares and at their scale dedicated people to care don't make sense.
Which brings me back to those boutique firms... with paper-only you reduce the problems to one that have been well-understood for hundreds of years. Air-gapped systems seem like an attractive option, but even then, you're depending on both the trust you place in the hardware, OS, and package vendors and in the practice of the new field of digital hygiene by the staff. My prediction is that some clientele somewhere - actors, politicians, billionaires - will decide that their private data should be as private as they can possibly make it, and that it will be the old-fashioned way.
But it's relatively easy to only have the people that need specific information to have it. Receptionist only has your names and contact information; doctor only has your relevant medical information; etc etc.
With paper, either everything will be together in a big file, or it would be very impractical to manage.
> My argument would be that care is more easily achieved by smaller groups working on smaller populations using fewer components.
Potentially. Or they'll improvise because they're a small operation and there's trust. Many a small company has been caught with terrible physical or digital security, because nobody cares and at their scale dedicated people to care don't make sense.