I do get the sense that you're not malicious, just that maybe you're not seeing this from the standpoint of someone that assigns a higher value to some elements of privacy. In this case, your user base expects a home automation system. They do not expect that system to scan their computer for passwords, regardless of how "safely" the home automation system were to behave.

You might have a heart of gold, and just be having an off day due to reasons, so I hope people cut you some slack, but if I were you I'd update this feature to be opt-in and conspicuous, immediately

Trust is hard won and easily lost. The entire reason I use Home Assistant is because I trust it to be the local, privacy focused home automation system. Things like this is a huge surprise that gives me pause to wonder what else it's doing that I wouldn't approve of. If I feel like I need to start setting up firewalls between HA and my internet to protect my privacy and data, I'm more likely to look towards alternatives and push my family members towards something else as well. This is the first time I've wondered if the project's ethics and culture matches what I expect out of the software.

Just my $0.02.

Asking basically the same thing as the sibling replies, but hopefully in a less aggressive way: can you elaborate on what led you to reply like that in the first place? As someone with no horse in the race (I don't use Home Assistant), the first reply you gave genuinely does seem like it was intended in good faith, even if it was not satisfying to the user, and I can understand that angry users are not fun to interact with, but I'm struggling to wrap my head around why your second reply was "This issue is closed as won't fix" without any elaboration about why. The explanation that seems most likely to me is that you were annoyed at the user and decided not to spend any time looking into the issue, which would be unfortunate but maybe understandable if that's what you're apologizing for. Without any explanation about why you quickly dismissed and then suddenly turned around and changed your mind later though, I think you've risked the apology coming across more as damage control than genuine regret.

As someone reading this with no dog in the fight, you came across as rude and patronizing. I'm sure you are not like that in real life, but those responses were ..ooof, not pleasant.

I'm just a rando stranger, don't mean to pile on to you. But as someone that has also launched products and talk to customers every day.. that's not a good look.

Again, no hate here, I'm sure you're great to talk to in real life, but just the way you wrote that was not pleasant at all.

why lying on your first reply? you mentioned 1Password did the same, in an attempt to make yourself "less guilty", but you failed to realize 1Password doesn't enable that option automatically without consent, and in some cases this option is periodically DISABLED automatically. address this, please, it's pretty embarrassing to lie like this just to cover y'all's ass.

> Only the first 5 characters of a SHA-1 hash go to HIBP

Some would consider the first five characters being sent over the internet to be 'your secret leaving your system'.

Some would consider phoning home to a remote server to be worrisome. It's home assistant not cloud assistant.

> My replies there were more dismissive than they should have been. My apologies.

I’m curious what made you change your mind, perhaps seeing this getting traction on hn?

>As it turns out, the check can already be turned off

Problem solved!

>My replies there were more dismissive than they should have been

What about this one?