logo
How (not) to track your health

How (not) to track your health

Vox20 hours ago

is a senior technology correspondent at Vox and author of the User Friendly newsletter. He's spent 15 years covering the intersection of technology, culture, and politics at places like The Atlantic, Gizmodo, and Vice.
You'd think I would have been more self-conscious about walking around New York City while wearing no fewer than six health trackers at a time. For the first six months of this year, I wore smart rings on both hands, fitness bands on both wrists, biosensors plugged into my arms, and sometimes even headphones that monitored my brain activity. I was a little embarrassed, sure, but mostly I was anxious.
This health tracking ensemble was part of an experiment — a failed one, I'll admit. By tracking as many health metrics as possible, I thought I'd find a way to feel younger, more energetic, and more fit. Products like the Oura ring, the Whoop band, the Apple Watch, and a growing variety of continuous glucose monitors promise to track things like your heart rate, body temperature, and metabolic health metrics, while their companion apps crunch that data into actionable advice about how to live your life. If one health tracker is good for you, theoretically, half a dozen should be great.
What I learned from obsessively tracking my health for half a year is that paying too much attention to what your body is doing can ruin your life. Or at least it can ruin your understanding of healthy living, since too much information can steer your brain toward assuming the worst. Looking at the readouts from these fitness tracking apps sent me down dark holes of Googling symptoms and self-diagnosing conditions that my doctor assured me I did not have. But, I reasoned, he did not have all of the data that the health tracker collected, so he could be wrong, and AI, which is increasingly embedded in this tech, is very good at diagnosing things.
I wouldn't caution against any and all health tracking. Now that the experiment is over, I'm only ever wearing one health tracker at a time. I've gained a new appreciation for how technology could become an essential part of healthy living in the near future, if you do it right. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but there are some things I would recommend to tracker-curious readers. And there are some things I would avoid at all costs.
Today, Explained
Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Do wear a smart ring when you sleep
Out of over a dozen gadgets tested, the one device that I added to my daily routine is an Oura ring that I only wear at night. (During the day, I wear an Apple Watch.) An Oura ring is a sensor-packed smart ring that measures a lot of the same things as a smartwatch, but is easier to wear while you sleep. The ring keeps track of your heart rate and movement to sense how well you sleep. Exactly how it does this is controversial with some sleep doctors, but it nonetheless generates a sleep score, which is oddly compelling.
The first thing I do every morning, I'm almost embarrassed to say, is check my sleep score in the Oura app. If it's bad, I feel vindicated for feeling groggy. If it's good, I feel energized, even if I still feel groggy. The sleep score is a made-up metric, one that may or may not be correct based on how Oura's algorithms calculate various factors, but paying attention to the score was helpful for me.
'The way that we think about how we've slept can really make us feel better,' Thea Gallagher, a psychologist at NYU Langone Health, told me. 'If we think we've had a good night of sleep, we will actually feel better physically and mentally and emotionally.'
Placebo effect notwithstanding, I'm also surprised by how much I listen to an app when it tells me to go to bed. Thanks to the Oura app, I've developed better sleeping habits, and frankly, I feel better.
Do start out with a clear goal in mind
When I first got an Apple Watch, I liked the rings that track how much you move. Moving more seemed like an easy goal that would improve my health. But some trackers seem to collect data for the sake of collecting data, with no particular objective.
Continuous glucose monitors, or CGMs, have been lifesavers for people with diabetes for years, but a growing list of companies sell them to non-diabetics over the counter. These biosensors stick a filament into your skin that measures the amount of glucose in your interstitial fluid, which can give you a good guess about what your blood glucose is at any given moment. If you don't know a lot about how metabolism works, the readouts can be horrifying. The first bowl of cereal I ate spiked my blood sugar outside of the normal range, which threw me into a panic — a panic that didn't entirely subside until I stopped wearing these sensors.
Part of what fueled that anxiety was the fact that I didn't actually know how to make sense of the data that these monitors spit out. Most of them alert you when your glucose is spiking and then give you some kind of score, but it's not clear what a good score indicates other than that you've managed to eat fewer carbs, probably. The whole experience can feel like a high-tech diet.
'There's not a lot of time and effort spent on figuring out what is the actual question that I have that's really important to me and that I'm willing to go through some some effort and troubleshooting in order to come out the other side with a genuine discovery that I can use in my regular life,' said Gary Wolf, a tech journalist and founder of Quantified Self, a community of people who have been tracking their health metrics since the mid-2000s.
Don't send your poop or blood to anyone in the mail
Health tracking isn't confined to wearable devices. Some companies, like Viome, Function Health, and Ultrahuman, are getting into the labwork business. The idea is that you can pay for extra testing and get all the results back in an app that promises to help you understand the intricate details of your gut microbiome or metabolic health. Some assign you a biological age based on your test results, and all of them cost many hundreds of dollars.
I did a battery of tests through Viome, including the gut microbiome test, which involved filling up little vials with poop and blood and dropping them at a post office. (Disclosure: Viome waived the fees for me.) The results seemed to tell me nothing that I didn't already reveal on the pre-test questionnaire, but I did have the opportunity to buy some very expensive supplements to address my problem areas. I don't recommend doing any of this.
Don't pay for a subscription unless the gadget really improves your life
If you've ever seen someone wearing a band around their wrist with a little hunk of plastic where the watch face should be, you've seen a Whoop band. This fitness-forward health tracker works a lot like a smartwatch without a screen, but the app is geared toward gym rats. The app not only gives you a strain score that measures how hard you've worked out, it also encourages you to recover. It costs $30 a month to enjoy all the features.
It's not just Whoop that wants you to keep paying. Oura also charges a subscription fee to unlock all of its features, but it's just $6. Apple has the Fitness+ subscription for $10, but that includes a bunch of classes, not unique features on the Watch. All of these little fees add up over time, so if you really just want basic functionality, skip the subscription. Without it, you can still see your sleep, readiness, and activity scores on an Oura ring. (That's all I look at anyway.) The Whoop band doesn't work at all if you don't pay.
Do take breaks
The best advice I got from the many experts I talked to throughout my health tracking journey was to take off the devices from time to time. The absolute flood of information about my health often made me uneasy, and it even led to some disordered behaviors, especially when it came to tracking my glucose levels and seeing my readings start veering away from normal levels. Still, I wondered if I shouldn't intervene somehow.
'Sometimes atypical results found by wearables can make people anxious, and it may be difficult to offer them definite reassurance for these results,' said Dr. David Klonoff, president of the Diabetes Technology Society. 'If traditional medicine cannot provide definite answers, then these people sometimes turn to natural or alternative medicine.'
Some health tracking companies want to take your money every month to keep using their services. Some want to sell you the latest generation of their device. Some want to sell you supplements. They all want you to keep using the trackers and apps, even if they're not necessarily making you healthier. That's good to keep in mind.
So check in with yourself when you're wearing a health tracker. Take it off, and leave it off for a while. Without a torrent of alerts telling you to stand, sleep, or eat, you may actually feel better.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Oura Keeps Pushing Smart Ring Tech Forward
How Oura Keeps Pushing Smart Ring Tech Forward

Time​ Magazine

time8 hours ago

  • Time​ Magazine

How Oura Keeps Pushing Smart Ring Tech Forward

On a Monday morning in late April, Oura CEO Tom Hale was feeling well-rested despite having stayed up later than usual the night before to catch the latest episode of The Last of Us . Clicking through data logged by his smart ring, he ticked off stats he was pleased with. Hale had gotten close to eight hours of sleep ('pretty rare' for him these days), including nearly 90 minutes of deep sleep. His 'efficiency'—how much time in bed he was actually sleeping—was 91 out of 100. 'My timing was perfect,' he says. 'I didn't get up in the middle of the night, which is a very typical thing for me.' Hale's sleep stats are the very reason he decided he wanted to join Oura, the Finland-based company that pioneered the smart ring category. During a stressful period in the fall of 2021, he was having trouble sleeping. He bought an Oura Ring and then made a handful of behavior changes based on its feedback about his sleep habits, like no longer drinking alcohol to unwind in the evenings. Within six weeks, he experienced dramatic results. The fix 'made me want to be a part of the company,' he says. It just so happened that Oura was searching for a new CEO, and the company is now thriving under Hale's leadership. In December, Oura announced its member base and revenue more than doubled in 2024. It's now sold more than 2.5 million rings, including the Oura 4, which was released in October. That device introduced the company's 'smart sensing' technology, which tracks blood oxygen levels, heart and respiratory rates, skin temperature changes, and movement. TIME spoke to Hale about what he attributes the company's success to, how health data can spur action, and why Oura is prioritizing women's health. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. These days, the ring can collect data on more than 20 biometrics. Which are you most excited about? I'm trying to age gracefully, and the two things I'm concerned about are heart health and metabolic health. I hate to admit this, but I have a sweet tooth. So for me, the metabolic part is controlling my blood sugar. Right now, I'm wearing a continuous glucose monitor. As of May, our partnership with Dexcom supports integration of that data, which means it can flow between Dexcom devices and the Oura ring and app. What I don't like to see is an enormous blood-sugar spike. I've learned there are some foods that aren't what you might consider to be a sugar bomb, but still have that effect. Rice turned out to cause a huge spike. Just by dialing back rice in my diet or consuming smaller portions, I'm able to stay within my range. That's important, because I don't want to go into prediabetes. The partnership with [glucose monitor maker] Dexcom seems like a natural fit—two companies that value data. We met with the CEO of Dexcom, and when he and his staff walked into the room, they were all wearing Oura rings. I was like, 'Well, I'm wearing a Dexcom sensor right now.' That technology was developed for people with diabetes. We want to be part of the solution that keeps people from even getting to that stage. Part of that is understanding which foods are going to affect you in a very discreet way. The thing that's so powerful about this tool is that your glucose and your glycemic response and your insulin response are going to be different based on how rested you are, what activity you've done and when you did that activity. Your genetics and biome also play a role. So a big part of what we're trying to do is educate people. You've described the Oura Ring as a doctor in the pocket—a tool to help scale up preventive care. What exactly does that mean? Wearables are a tool—they're not the answer for everything. But they're a very powerful tool, both from the perspective of predicting things or giving you feedback, and educating you and motivating you to do the things that are hardest in preventive care—changing behaviors. For example, I stopped drinking alcohol [at night], and that was a behavioral change rooted in 30 years of my adult life. I changed it very quickly when I saw that alcohol ruined my REM sleep. We're not trying to be like doctors—but the fact of the matter is, there simply aren't enough in the U.S. With Oura, you have something on your body that's monitoring you and knows when you have a deviation from the norm. I would call it algorithmic care. There's a set of conditions in your biometrics, and we can say, 'Hey, you're getting sick, you're getting a cold, maybe you need to be checked out for something a little more serious. Maybe you should go talk to a doctor and share this data.' It's ultimately a tool that's part of your overall care. I've heard Oura staffers call what the company does 'giving your body a voice.' Is that a common phrase around the office? We say it all the time. What's really different about Oura is the fidelity of the information because of overnight tracking, as well as the accuracy of the finger [as a data collection site]. Getting it right builds trust. Lots of competitors are popping up, yet Oura's membership keeps growing. Do you attribute that to the trust you're describing? It's a couple things. If the Oura Ring says to you, 'Hey, it looks like you're getting sick,' you might go, 'Oh, I feel fine.' But two days later, when you're on the couch surrounded by Kleenex, you realize: 'It told me something I didn't already know.' That's the magic. The degree to which Oura can surprise you with something you don't know happens frequently and is, on balance, more often right than it is wrong. It's not always perfect, but it's pretty close. That gives us an edge. The other thing that's really important is that we nailed the use cases for women. How do you see women using the ring? Maybe in your late teens or early 20s, it's about knowing when you're going to have your cycle and planning for contraception. Then, as you enter your late 20s or 30s, maybe it's conception. A lot of Oura customers are trying to conceive. One of the things Oura does is it gives you a really good signal about your fertile window—which is actually our first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved feature. Then there's pregnancy, a real focus for us this year. How do your biometrics change during pregnancy? What should you expect? Is this something maybe you need to talk to your OB-GYN about? But our vision is that we should be able to serve women and give their body a voice over pregnancy, postpartum, perimenopause and menopause—that entire timeframe. Are there stories you've heard from Oura users that really stand out in your mind? So many. There was the grandfather who started to see his metrics decline. His grandkid was looking at it and said, 'Hey, grandpa, this doesn't look good. We should get you checked out.' It turns out he was on the brink of a myocardial infarction [heart attack]. There's a Paralympian who was visiting his parents at home. He's a sprinter, and he's like, 'You know, I'm not feeling great.' He's looking at his app and it's saying, 'Major signs, major signs, something is going on,' and he's like, 'No, I don't want to tell my parents because they'll put pressure on me to suck it up and keep competing.' It turns out he had appendicitis, and he basically credited Oura with helping him have the courage to say, 'I need to get this checked out. Something is going on.' Those kinds of stories aren't strictly speaking happy stories. But people get the opportunity to have agency in their health journey and to take action. That's really powerful. Disclosure: Investors in Oura include TIME owner and co-chair Marc Benioff

Dems: Medicaid cuts complicate health AI dreams
Dems: Medicaid cuts complicate health AI dreams

Politico

time13 hours ago

  • Politico

Dems: Medicaid cuts complicate health AI dreams

WASHINGTON WATCH House Republicans and Democrats clashed during a Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing Wednesday over how to fund and advance the use of digital health technologies. 'We live in a time where Americans have access to better technology and more health information than ever to truly be the 'CEO of their health,'' subcommittee Chair Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) said, noting that despite high spending on health care, Americans are getting sicker. Digital health tools and artificial intelligence are central to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s strategy to cure chronic disease and reduce costs. But Democrats warned that the GOP's proposed Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump's megabill could hamper the adoption of AI and other innovations in health care. 'I'm a bit in the twilight light zone. At the same time that we're here talking about this issue, my colleagues on the other side just passed a bill that would effectively take away health care for 16 million Americans,' said Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.). At the heart of the disagreement is cost. 'People cannot take advantage of technological advances in health care if they do not have health insurance coverage or face insurmountable financial barriers to health care services,' said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. For health systems, that means less revenue to invest in innovative technologies, especially ones with no or low reimbursement rates. A few ideas that were floated: — The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should set reimbursement rates for some digital technologies and raise the rates for technology that's already reimbursed. — Congress should expand tax-advantaged health savings accounts so Americans can use them to buy health and fitness wearables like WHOOP bands and Oura Rings. — Lawmakers should consider the impact Medicaid cuts would have on doctors' ability to implement AI. What's next: Republicans have waffled on whether to include an expansion of health savings accounts in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' because they'll add to the budget. But Senate Republicans are feeling pressure from their House counterparts to keep them in. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Life science company Verily is re-upping its work on the research platform that powers All of Us, a NIH-funded, big data project that seeks to understand risk factors for disease, better treatments, and how technology can help make people healthier. The contract with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, one of the NIH's key partners on the program, is for the next five years. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Danny Nguyen at dnguyen@ Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: Dannyn516.70, CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. CONNECTING THE DOTS Federal agencies developed or used more than 2,000 artificial intelligence tools or programs in 2024, according to an analysis by POLITICO's Rosmery Izaguirre. Agencies reported that, in about 16 percent of use cases, their tools or programs posed safety concerns or had the potential to infringe on users' civil rights or rights to data or privacy. The Department of Health and Human Services reported the highest total number of AI use cases among its agencies, with four use cases presenting rights or safety concerns. The Justice Department reported the second-highest number of AI use cases, with 124 use cases presenting concerns, and the Department of Veterans Affairs reported the third-highest number of AI use cases with 145 use cases presenting concerns. The Trump administration is poised to expand AI use across federal agencies. In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order rescinding Biden-era legislation that promoted a more cautious approach to developing and testing use cases for AI. In an April memo, the Trump administration set its own disclosure requirements for agencies using AI, repealing the previous administration's conditions. Several rules were rescinded, including those related to rights and safety reporting, but the requirement for agencies to track and report their use of AI was maintained. What's next for HHS: AI is used widely across HHS, from analyzing big public health datasets and detecting health trends to more rote tasks like summarizing documents. But not all of the departments' AI efforts are rolling out smoothly. Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration deployed a general-use chatbot to shorten reviews throughout the agency. But two current and two former agency employees granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters told POLITICO that the bot isn't capable of meaningfully reducing review time.

The Supreme Court's disastrous new abortion decision, explained
The Supreme Court's disastrous new abortion decision, explained

Vox

time14 hours ago

  • Vox

The Supreme Court's disastrous new abortion decision, explained

is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the author of the Court's new attack on Medicaid, shakes hands with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images Federal law says that 'any individual eligible for medical assistance' from a state Medicaid program may obtain that care 'from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.' In other words, all Medicaid patients have a right to choose their doctor, as long as they choose a health provider competent enough to provide the care they seek. On Thursday, however, the Republican justices ruled, in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, that Medicaid patients may not choose their health provider. And then they went much further. Thursday's decision radically reorders all of federal Medicaid law, rendering much of it unenforceable. Medina could prove to be one of the most consequential health care decisions of the last several years, and one of the deadliest, as it raises a cloud of doubt over countless laws requiring that certain people receive health coverage, as well as laws ensuring that they will receive a certain quality of care. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. All three of the Court's Democrats dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Medina is a trainwreck of legal reasoning. It's hard to think of a principled reason why, two years after the Court took a much more expansive approach to Medicaid law in Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski (2023), the Republican justices abruptly decided to reverse course. It is easy, however, to see a political reason for the Medina decision. The plaintiff in Medina, after all, is Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider Republicans love to hate. Medina involved South Carolina's attempt to forbid Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood as their health provider, a policy that violates federal law. In an apparent attempt to spite Planned Parenthood, the Republican justices have now effectively repealed that law. This is not aberrant behavior from this Court's Republican majority. Four years ago, before the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, the justices considered a Texas law which permitted private bounty hunters to sue abortion providers and collect bounties of at least $10,000 from them. The Texas law was an obvious attempt to cut off abortion rights in violation of Roe, but five of the Republican justices joined an opinion by Gorsuch, which held that this sort of law could not be challenged in federal court because, Gorsuch claimed, abortion providers must wait until after they are hauled into court by a bounty hunter to assert their rights. Medina fits within the same legal tradition. When a case involves abortion providers, the Court's Republican majority is frequently willing to twist the law into any shape necessary to ensure that the abortion providers lose. What was the specific legal issue in Medina? A federal law known as 'Section 1983' lets state officials be sued if they deprive someone of 'any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.' This is arguably the most important civil rights law ever enacted by Congress. Without it, many federal laws and constitutional provisions would be unenforceable. Medina turns on Section 1983's reference to 'rights' protected by federal law. Past Supreme Court decisions establish that not all federal laws create a right that can be enforced under Section 1983 and so the Court has developed a set of rules to determine which laws do. Before Thursday's decision in Medina, the key case laying out this framework was Talevski. Talevski held that a federal law creates enforceable rights when it is ''phrased in terms of the persons benefited' and contains 'rights-creating,' individual-centric language with an 'unmistakable focus on the benefited class.'' Thus, before Thursday, the key question was whether a law's text focuses on the individuals who benefit. A hypothetical federal law which provides that 'no state may prevent a hungry person from eating at Taco Bell' would be enforceable, under Talevski, because this hypothetical law centers the people who benefit from it (people who are hungry). A similar statute stating that 'states shall not impede access to cheap burritos' would likely not be enforceable under Talevski, because it does not mention who is supposed to benefit from these burritos. Under Talevski, Medina is an easy case, and it should have ended in a 9-0 victory for Planned Parenthood. Here is the relevant statutory language from the Medina case: A State plan for medical assistance must … provide that … any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required (including an organization which provides such services, or arranges for their availability, on a prepayment basis), who undertakes to provide him such services. This law is full of the kind of 'individual-centric language' demanded by Talevski. It provides a right to 'any individual.' It provides that these individuals 'may obtain' care from their chosen provider. And it concludes with a pronoun ('him') which refers back to the individuals who benefit from this law. There is simply no way to reconcile Gorsuch's Medina opinion with Talevski. So how does Gorsuch try to get around Talevski? The Republican justices largely try to get around Talevski by ignoring it, or by misrepresenting what it said. Notably, the key words laying out Talevski's legal rule — that federal laws are enforceable through private lawsuits if they are 'phrased in terms of the persons benefited' — appear nowhere in Gorsuch's opinion. Instead, Gorsuch introduces some new principles into federal Medicaid law that are likely to confuse judges who must apply his decision to other provisions of the Medicaid statute. In its brief, for example, South Carolina suggested that a federal law must use the magic word 'right,' or it is unenforceable under Section 1983. Gorsuch's opinion doesn't go quite this far, but it does repeatedly point out that the provision of Medicaid law at issue in Talevski, which the Court held to be enforceable, uses this magic word in its text. Unlike Talevski, however, Medina does not articulate a clear legal rule which lower court judges can apply to other provisions of Medicaid law. It does not even explicitly overrule Talevski. Instead, Gorsuch mostly just points to some random features of the law at issue in Medina, and then leaves readers to guess how to determine which Medicaid laws are still enforceable. Gorsuch, for example, finds it quite significant that a different provision of federal Medicaid law allows states to exclude some providers who are convicted of a felony from their Medicaid program — a fact that is completely irrelevant under Talevski. He also notes that the provision at issue in Medina 'appears in a subsection titled 'Contents.'' It's hard to understand how this title is relevant. Moreover, this segment of Gorsuch's opinion appears to conflict with the explicit text of a federal law, which states that a provision of Medicaid law 'is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section…specifying the required contents of a State plan.' Gorsuch also includes an ominous line suggesting that, in the future, his Court will read Medicaid laws very narrowly: 'Though it is rare enough for any statute to confer an enforceable right,' Gorsuch claims, 'spending-power statutes like Medicaid are especially unlikely to do so.' Thursday's decision, in other words, is likely to have sweeping implications for low-income Americans' health care, even if it was handed down solely to wound Planned Parenthood. Federal Medicaid law is riddled with provisions governing how states must operate their Medicaid programs, including requirements governing who must be covered, and rules governing patient safety. The Talevski case, for example, concerned a law which prohibits nursing homes from using psychotropic drugs 'for purposes of discipline or convenience' when they are 'not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms.' Under Medina, many of these laws may now be rendered unenforceable. It should be noted that, even under Gorsuch's decision, there is still one possible way to enforce the law permitting Medicaid patients to choose their health providers — the federal government could cut off some or all Medicaid funding to South Carolina. Realistically, however, this remedy would only make matters worse. It does not help Medicaid patients to take away their funding, and so the federal government has historically been exceedingly reluctant to use this blunderbuss of an enforcement mechanism.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store