Tell HN: Installing Cursor on iOS irreversibly changes your privacy settings

164

zzkldi about 3 hours ago 23 comments

ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

Just hit this today and I'm furious. I installed the Cursor iOS app to see what it had.

I've been on `Privacy Mode (Legacy)` for a long time, which is the "Do not store my code" setting. A year or so ago they marked this as "Legacy" and hid it under a "Extra options" menu. They added a new Privacy Mode which is significantly more wishy-washy about what it might store - it includes a clause of "Code may be stored for Background Agents or Other Features", so I've never touched it or wanted to enable it.

pic: https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/cursor1/optimized/3X/0/9/09412f800cb07a713d13c034f40eaf28e165e8f4_2_1032x1000.jpeg

Upon installing and logging in to the iOS app, my account was changed to the softer Privacy Mode and the previous setting I was on has disappeared from all menus. I contacted support and they've said:

> Really sorry about this. When you set up the mobile app, the prompt to turn on Cloud Agents switched you from Privacy Mode (Legacy) to our current Privacy Mode,

> without making clear what that meant or that it's hard to undo. That wasn't right, and we're working on making that prompt clearer.

> To be straight with you: I'm not able to switch your account back to Privacy Mode (Legacy). The option to move back isn't available in the app today.

So just a PSA I guess; do not install or set up the app if you want to keep your privacy settings.

I honestly don't understand how it's legal to make logging into the iOS app change your privacy settings at all. Making the option then disappear from all menus so you can't get it back is doubly ridiculous.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 500 words in the discussion.

Discussion (23 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

soared•about 2 hours ago

That support quote is from an LLM. If you have any escalation paths (twitter, or this thread lol) there may still be a way to change it back.

nikanj•about 1 hour ago

Hacker News front page remains the one true support channel for all larger tech companies. The official channels stonewall you, but HN reaches people who can actually help

jmuguy•about 2 hours ago

The mobile app is kind of pointless anyway, imo. It cannot start an agent session on your computer, it can only be "handed off" an existing session from your computer. I don't use Cloud Agents, because for some reason they can't connect to our Linear instance. So I was only interested in using the mobile app as a proxy for my home system.

LatticeAnimal•about 2 hours ago

It is surprising that they went this route instead of the Claude-code route. The cloud agents are significantly more limiting.

conartist6•about 3 hours ago

That's about the level of respect the tech industry has for users

boudra•about 1 hour ago

For folks are looking for an open source alternative that respects your privacy, see Paseo (disclaimer: I am the maintainer)

sbmsr•about 2 hours ago

Wow - same happened to me earlier today and was bummed. Glad to see a public place to flag this.

cmdrmac•about 3 hours ago

This bait-and-switch with privacy is what annoys me. I get that if the software was completely free, you are the product. But if I'm paying, why can I not have a privacy policy that actually benefits me - the user?

klibertp•about 2 hours ago

You're probably not paying nearly enough? IDK, but pricing in tech is stretched on both ends (either way too cheap, or incredibly expensive) so much that it's hard to say anything for sure just because one is a "paying customer".

sunaookami•8 minutes ago

Did LLM companies pay everyone for the code and text they stole?

cmdrmac•30 minutes ago

Fair point. I'd add on that the company should explicitly spell out strong privacy as a feature then and charge more. Saying that "we won't use your data for training", but then not really meaning it is a bit disingenuous. How I interpret that statement may not necessarily align with the company (i.e., what kind of training?).

throw1234567891•about 2 hours ago

> You're probably not paying nearly enough?

What are the real prices then? What is the “privacy price”?

buzer•about 1 hour ago

2 weeks ago it was $60 billion apparently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48553224

It might be higher now.

jklm•about 2 hours ago

Happened to me too, incredibly dark pattern

HeyMeco•about 3 hours ago

Yeah fell into the same trap. Super annoying

LoganDark•about 3 hours ago

Similarly, the Claude app for iOS tries to force you through a mandatory onboarding where you're required to set your account name among other things. I've never needed this to use the CLI or the web app so I have no idea why they think they need it on iOS. There's seemingly no way to bypass this, so on iOS I've had to use Claude in Safari. Ridiculous.

sleepybrett•about 3 hours ago

surprise! the ai companies that stole every conceivable copywritten work to train their models doesn't want you to be able to have any privacy either.

doublescoop•43 minutes ago

But they sure seem awfully worried about other companies distilling their models. The irony is rich.

dbalatero•about 2 hours ago

I suspect that while they prefer you to give up all your data, what's even more likely is they are moving fast and breaking things at a rate unseen before, and not enough conversation is happening in design phases where someone can flag that "Hey if you add this new prompt it might break an important user contract you forgot about."

In either case annoying still.

sleepybrett•about 2 hours ago

just another line in the context. 'Make sure the customers have at least the same level of privacy protection that they currently have.'

rekttrader•about 2 hours ago

Elon’s invisible hand strikes again.

MetaWhirledPeas•about 1 hour ago

The company was acquired days ago. You think this was implemented since then?

ai_slop_hater•18 minutes ago

That company has always been garbage.