Tell HN: Claude Code adds your email to the prompt, the LLM sends it to websites
READ THE ORIGINAL SOURCEOpen original sourcenews.ycombinator.com · Opens in a new tabThe supplied text is a brief Hacker News discussion post linking to two external items: a GitHub issue in the Claude Code repository reporting that the user's email address is added to the prompt, and a Reddit post reporting that the model shared the user's email address with a website. The text itself contains no details of the mechanism, scope, or confirmation of either report.
One primary source; other links are context, not independent corroboration.
- Primary sourceHacker News · LLM
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Open full article view →- Community discussion+5
- Feed text or abstract+15
- No editor link review+0
- Community link+0
This measures the stored source trail and editorial steps. It does not certify accuracy, peer review, or independent corroboration. Popularity adds no points.
View full scoring →Read the scoring rubric →What the source says
The supplied text is a brief Hacker News discussion post linking to two external items: a GitHub issue in the Claude Code repository reporting that the user's email address is added to the prompt, and a Reddit post reporting that the model shared the user's email address with a website. The text itself contains no details of the mechanism, scope, or confirmation of either report.
A READER'S EVIDENCE CHECKHow to read this signalSix questions about claims, sources, risks, and open checks
This is a signal-level guide until claim-level evidence is available. “Not recorded” means the evidence has not been assessed here; it does not mean a result is false. How we check AI news →
- 01Who is making each claim?
The claimant and whether each claim was measured or asserted are not recorded in this public brief.
- 02What was actually tested?
Not recorded per claim. Check the source for sample size, tasks, model and benchmark versions, and reproducibility.
- 03Where are the sources?
Original link: news.ycombinator.com. Brief basis: source excerpt from feed. Primary page date and quote locations are not established in this panel.
- 04What could mislead?
Source claims not independently checked; the supplied text contains only links and no verified details.
- 05What is at risk if wrong?
Not assessed per claim. Consider safety, privacy, cost, and adoption decisions before relying on the result.
- 06What would change the view?
No claim-specific check is recorded. An inspectable primary method or independent replication could change the assessment.
Key findings from the stored brief
- The post links to a GitHub issue reporting that Claude Code adds the user's email address to the prompt.
- The post links to a Reddit thread reporting that the model shared an email address with a website.
Source claims not independently checked; the supplied text contains only links and no verified details.
This is a source-based abstract, not independent validation of the source's claims.
Evidence & sources
These links show where the signal came from and what the source page linked to. A linked page is context, not independent corroboration.
Related archive coverage
These relationships record a citation or topic overlap, not confirmation of the finding.
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Timeline & updates
- Signal dated by source or discovery feed
This timestamp places the signal in the radar. It may be the discovery post date rather than the primary page's first publication date.
- Shared brief stored
AINewsIQ prepared one abstract from source excerpt from feed.
A publication revision history is not stored for this signal. New engagement snapshots do not mean the source itself changed.
Why this may matter
If accurate, reports of a coding assistant exposing a user's email to third-party sites raise privacy concerns for developers using such tools with sensitive accounts.
Limits and open questions
Source claims not independently checked; the supplied text contains only links and no verified details.
Organization-specific financial, security, and operational effects require the organization's own context and review.
Discussion
Comments are reviewed before publication. Discuss the evidence, not the person.
No published comments yet.
Reader discussion opens with accounts. You can read the original source and published comments now.