When systems fail: A contested Colorado convention raises broader questions about your digital life

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

A hospital cancels surgeries.

Not because of a storm. Not because of a staffing shortage.

Because a cyberattack forced it to.

“They had to block Stryker from coming into their network and cancel all of the surgeries that required that robotic device,” said Maria Orms, a cybersecurity professional who was a gubernatorial candidate at the April 11 assembly. 

“That could cause someone to die.” This wasn’t just a what-if.

In March, there was a cyberattack tied to an Iran-linked hacking group that hit companies in the medical technology space, including Stryker and Intuitive Surgical.

What that meant in practice wasn’t always clear in the moment.

But hospitals rely on those systems every day—robotic platforms, connected networks, tools that are supposed to just work.

And when something interrupts that, even briefly, decisions have to be made.

What can continue. What has to stop.

In another case, the consequences were even more immediate.

A man with a device implanted in his brain to control severe tremors suddenly lost function when the system supporting it came under attack.

“They were under a cyberattack.”

The tremors returned without warning. He couldn’t feed himself. His wife had to help him back inside.

Orms said these are not isolated incidents.

They are warnings.

And what she saw days later at the Colorado Republican assembly in Pueblo followed the same pattern.

Maria Orms said vulnerabilities in connected systems can quickly affect real-world decisions. Photo: Maria Orms

What was happening in Pueblo

It didn’t look like a cyberattack, but once people heard there were internet issues, the question came up.

Delays. Shifting procedures. People trying to make sense of a system that no longer matched what they were told to expect.

From a systems perspective, the problem was the same.

In the days leading up to the assembly, party officials were scrambling to recover from what some described as a compromised or unusable delegate database—forcing counties to resend information at the last minute.

In her field, that raises immediate questions.

Modern systems are built with backups. Data can typically be restored to a previous point in time. When that doesn’t happen, it points to a deeper breakdown—whether in preparation, process or security itself.

“The whole thing is a system… failure. There seem to be holes on every level.”

And when failures stack like that, they don’t stay contained.

“When this many things go wrong… you can’t be clear on anything.”

This is already happening in your life

The breakdown didn’t start in Pueblo.

It showed up in healthcare.

Not just in equipment or scheduling—but in decisions about which procedures could go forward and which had to be delayed.

Decisions with real consequences.

Moments like that show how deeply connected modern systems have become—and how quickly that connection turns into vulnerability.

The same risks exist in systems people rely on every day.

“Just think of your grocery store, one week, no food delivery.”

Think about what has to work just to get through a normal day—food deliveries, power, staying connected. It’s all connected.

When something breaks in that chain, it doesn’t stay small.

For families, the exposure often shows up in ways they’re not prepared for.

“I think children and elderly [are most vulnerable].”

In one case, a 14-year-old boy began receiving explicit images from someone outside the country. Authorities became involved. His mother didn’t know how to stop it. Orms said she “didn’t know how to protect the child.”

Even replacing devices or changing accounts doesn’t erase the exposure once data is out.

Financial systems reflect the same pattern.

Breached passwords and compromised accounts have become part of modern life, forcing people to cancel cards, reset access and rebuild accounts—often without knowing where the breach started.

“Anytime your password is breached… you can never use that password again.”

A hacked account. A strange message. A system that doesn’t work the way it should.

Individually, those moments feel isolated.

Together, they point to something else.

A growing dependence on systems most people can’t see—and can’t control.

You are being tracked more than you realize

For many people, data collection isn’t a surprise.

The scale of it is.

“They know what time you go to bed… what time you wake up… how many steps you take.”

“They know you better than you know yourself.”

That information doesn’t just sit in a database.

It’s analyzed, sorted and used to build profiles—ones that can predict behavior, preferences and even emotional patterns.

“They can listen to your breathing through your phone microphone and know if you’re stressed.”

Even the small things people don’t think about can be picked up and tracked.

“Your phone is going to recognize me and my voice.”

That tracking extends across devices—phones, apps, wearables and household technology.

Convenience is often the tradeoff.

Smart refrigerators can show you what’s inside while you’re at the store. Apps track movement, purchases and routines. Platforms offer free services in exchange for access to personal information.

But those systems don’t always work the way people assume.

There are reports of smart refrigerators displaying safe temperatures while failing to keep food cold enough—leading to spoilage and illness.

“It’s that once devices are connected, they can fail or be manipulated in ways users may never see.”

And that gap between perception and reality is where risk begins.

“You don’t own your personal data in this country… and I think that’s wrong.”

In many cases, that data is sold, shared or accessed far beyond the original interaction—sometimes to data brokers, and in some cases to government entities.

The result is a system where personal information becomes a commodity.

Often without the knowledge or control of the person it belongs to.

For Orms, the issue isn’t just privacy.

It’s awareness.

Elections are only as strong as the systems behind them

What happened in Pueblo has already been documented. Orms outlined her concerns in a recent guest commentary. 

On April 15, she formally challenged the integrity and accuracy of the vote tabulation, alleging deviations from credentialing procedures, irregular access to the teller area, a discrepancy between credentialed delegates and votes counted, and acceptance of ballots from individuals without delegate designation.

The more important question is what it revealed.

“Anything electronic can be hacked. Anything.”

In cybersecurity, systems aren’t secured with a single safeguard. They’re built with layers—physical controls, identity verification, access restrictions and monitoring systems working together.

“You have to have multiple layers of defense.”

That kind of design isn’t something local election officials can manage alone.

Counties don’t have the resources. Clerks aren’t trained as security engineers.

“We should have a team that does that,” she said, describing what she sees as a need for a centralized approach at the state level.

Without that kind of structure, it ends up on people who were never trained for it—and things slip through.

The breakdown continues in how problems are handled.

In most technical environments, any failure triggers a formal investigation. Systems are isolated. Data is preserved. A full forensic review follows—sometimes for months.

“There’s a principle… that there’s no blame laid… because you want everybody to be honest,” she said.

In her field, the focus is on understanding what happened—so the same failure doesn’t happen again.

That process is largely missing from how election issues are handled.

“You have to do cybersecurity incident reports on any discrepancy… so that you can learn what to do better the next time.”

Without those reports, there’s no consistent way to identify what went wrong, verify what actually happened or fix the system before the next failure.

And without access to full data—system logs, forensic images—independent analysis becomes nearly impossible.

“We can’t improve.”

Because when something goes wrong and no full investigation follows, the same risks remain in place—unexamined and unresolved.

She said the issue isn’t whether a single race was affected.

It’s whether the process as a whole operated in a way that allows people to trust it.

“When this many things go wrong… you can’t be clear on anything.”

The next phase: Control, dependency and the digital future

As digital systems expand, the risks don’t just grow—they change.

They become harder to see.

Artificial intelligence is one example.

“It can figure out how to manipulate us.”

That capability comes from the same data systems already tracking how people live.

At the same time, dependence on technology continues to grow.

“Could you cook a chicken if the internet was down?”

For many, the answer is no. And that changes things.

It trades independence for what feels easier.

Emerging technologies add another layer.

Quantum computing could render current encryption methods obsolete—making secure data accessible.

“The big answer is nobody knows what to do about it.”

That uncertainty compounds an already complex system.

But the impact is personal.

“They can impact you economically… they can find you physically.”

In one case, a reporter covering cartel activity was tracked through digital surveillance.

“They found him.”

Awareness in a system you can’t see

What happened in Pueblo raised questions about process.

What this reveals goes further.

It’s about systems most people don’t see—but rely on every day.

When they work, they disappear.

When they fail, the impact is immediate.

Hospitals. Homes. Personal devices. Everyday life.

The first step isn’t technical.

It’s awareness.

“Be aware… understand where technology is in your life… and decide what you’re going to do about it.”

Because the question isn’t whether these systems are shaping daily life.

They already are.

The question is how much control people actually have over them—and how much they’re willing to give up for convenience.

“This is the challenge for our generation.”