Apple Health is one of the default apps on iOS and has several health tracking features, including menstrual cycle tracking. It is also gender neutral.
We already have Apple Health listed under Health Records and we have Apple Fitness, which shares the same privacy policy and security features as Apple Health.
I also updated the descriptions of Apple Health Records and Apple Fitness to refer to the new addition, like having Apple Fitness say âIt shares the privacy policy and security features of Apple Health.â
Yes but this doesnât apply to Apple Health. You wonât get anything if you subpoena it. You will need to seize the physical device to extract apple health data or find the person they share the tracker with.
The current recommended apps say the information is stored locally on-device. Would that be preferred in this case?
Both current recommendations appear on the app store, but Apple Health would not require the user to sign into the app store with an Apple store account to download. Perhaps that is preferable, but I think is an edge case.
A subpoena is a specific legal document, and I was unable to find a source for this. Are there specific examples of subpoenas or was it claims of LE buying menstruation data from data brokers?
I think that depends how much you trust Apple. I know a lot of people on the forum do, but personally I would not with stuff that could wind up getting me a felony (for just living my life and committing no crimes).
I think youâre right that it was certain companies selling data, my brain got news happenings crossed up I think.
I also didnât realize there was already a menstrual tracking section on the site (thatâs my oversight because the title of this thread clearly implies it already exists). I guess my concern is more with recommending any digital solution for period tracking to people in certain parts of the world without serious warnings about the potential risks. Thereâs technically a disclaimer in that section, and also it kinda implies using one of the recommended apps carries no risk, which I donât think is my view of something with that high of potential repercussions.
Seems reasonable, Iâm alright with listing it. Itâs just that it would be a bit redundant listing it twice on the same page but itâs already a short page to begin with.
Yeah, it is a bit redundant to list it twice. Perhaps some of these apps could fit under a âgeneral healthâ section, and we could list specific features they offer. I didnât want to overhaul the page without at least discussing it first, and itâd probably fit more under a separate suggestion/PR anyway.