upvote
I assume mpoteat is a Claude Code dev since they've responded to similar issues before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49815363).

Which is great! It's good for the community when people bring first-hand updates here, and to make sure that it continues, it's important that we respond respectfully. (I don't think your post was disrespectful, but commenters have crossed that line in other situations in the past.)

reply
Yep, she’s the Claude function hooks lead, as far as I’m aware! https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/91870
reply
I appreciate their input, and yours, and I intend this feedback respectfully… But come on… Is a little outrage completely inappropriate?
reply
No, I agree, but it hinges on what you call "a little".

If you take into account that most people underestimate their own provocations by (say) 10x and overestimate those of others by (say) another 10x, that compounds to quite a skew. This can, and often does, plunge discussion into internet failure modes like rage fests and outright mob dynamics.

It's therefore best to temper one's indignation with some kind of alloy (as you did in your comment here) and not go full uninhibited. I know that's countercultural, counterintuitive, and unsatisfying, but it's the right tradeoff for this site, given what we're trying to optimize for.

reply
Maybe it's somewhat appropriate? But in any event it's unlikely that any one individual who posts here is the person[1] who's responsible, so we may as well be outraged at "Anthropic" but assume good faith on the part of the random commenters from Anthropic.

When I'm talking to customer service people after a particularly egregious ordeal, I tend to edit myself and replace "you" (plus "you bastards", "you idiots", etc. ;) ) with <Company Name> for this same reason.

[1] and yes it seems very realistic that Claude himself may be the jackass responsible.

reply
> Claude himself

itself

reply
claudeself?
reply
This technically justifies GDPR fine. A software leaking and processing PII without permission for this specific use case. But I would not hold my breath.
reply
that's basically everything AI does though
reply
But that is not an excuse
reply
Yes, I was looking for some confirmation as it wasn't initially clear whether the plugin was an Anthropic one or a third party's (I found very little about it online, and didn't want to take Gemini's word for it). Usually people say "[company] developer here" or have it in their profile.
reply
Email addresses are PII. The GDPR also has higher protections for AI processing, like here.

If you’re in the EU, send a complaint to your data protection authority.

I imagine quite a few would be very interested in following up and investigating here, and getting Anthropic to drop the email from the system prompt.

reply
I'm going to send the complaint. They've been sharing my PII without my consent and knowledge.

Nice that this time we get the company to admit it in public, and that they've been aware of that earlier but only acted now.

reply
No objection to your assertion; but it seems much harder to fix than just that. Doing `git log -n 1` will pull up an email 99% of the time. It may not be the same email, but it's just as PII anyway.

I suspect the privacy plugin method is a more sane fix -- ideally, plain old code should be inspecting any web request my agent makes and let me decide if that outbound request should contain certain sensitive strings. I'd also want to put a few bytes of my SSH private key and of any other sensitive keys in the 'do not leak' watchlist as well.

reply
What even is this answer? Full of really really far fetched assumptions.

Not everyone uses the same company email with Claude and on github, not everyone commits to public repos, not everyone uses the same email on LinkedIn.

This is an example of a really weird gymnastics.

Me, for example, I'm using my private email with Claude, different email on LinkedIn, different email and unconnected username on a new github account I created for this job, and I don't even use it for public repos.

How come you get to decide that the fact someone puts their real email in commits and knowingly shares it with everyone is the same as Anthropic pulling a private, personal email and real name they had no consent to share - and spray it all over the Net?

reply
Anthropic didn’t pull it. You ran the agent on your computer, you gave it unfettered access to that information, you let it send requests that you didn’t review. Honestly why would you be surprised that something like this could and would happen?
reply
Many assumptions and "responses" that don't even tangentially touch my comment.

Do you want to try again?

reply
Oh got it, not affected by this at all and just whining for no reason. Check, noted, good work.
reply
There may be an assumption that these issues are human reviewed.
reply
Their LinkedIn (linked on their website) says they work at an undisclosed company. Not sure many people who are at Anthropic wouldn't want others to know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
reply