Risk
10/14/2013
09:33 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

LinkedIn Preps 'Block User' Capability

Feature will help end online stalkers' pursuit of victims.

When Anna Rihtar began her campaign for LinkedIn to add a block user feature, she was at the beginning of her sales career -- and in the middle of an ongoing stalking nightmare. Sadly, she was far from alone.

Rihtar worked with Change.org to bolster her earlier efforts and began a LinkedIn Privacy/Blocking Petition group on the business-oriented social media site (membership required). When I first wrote about her efforts, many were surprised that LinkedIn didn't already include this capability, which is readily available on many other social networks. All that changed recently when LinkedIn finally agreed to begin working on a block user feature.

Writing in a forum on the LinkedIn privacy group, Paul Rockwell, the company's head of trust and safety, told members that LinkedIn is building a block user feature. Rockwell also pointed participants to the redesigned Safety Center and reminded them about flagging or reporting inappropriate or threatening behavior.

The feature is not out yet, and Rockwell didn't give an estimated timeframe. That left some skeptics among the group's approximately 80 members -- many of whom say they have been stalked online.

Bonny Folkestad, a consultant who has been stalked via LinkedIn, told me in an email:

I don't know if it will change anything, since a trust has been broken. I don't know if I can ever feel safe to be honest. It is a true love/hate relationship. I really think LinkedIn, Pinterest, FaceBook, etc., should all have staff that pay attention to and welcome emails regarding concerns that people might have, that they would take customer service to the virtual world and even investigate complaints. The front end is changing so fast that the back end has to catch up. These companies are making enough money that they can afford to have staffs to protect those that use their sites. They need the ethical hackers to protect us. Actually they can't afford not to.

Read the rest of this article on Internet Evolution.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7392
Published: 2014-07-22
Gitlist allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in a file name to Source/.

CVE-2014-2385
Published: 2014-07-22
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the web UI in Sophos Anti-Virus for Linux before 9.6.1 allow local users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) newListList:ExcludeFileOnExpression, (2) newListList:ExcludeFilesystems, or (3) newListList:ExcludeMountPaths parameter t...

CVE-2014-3518
Published: 2014-07-22
jmx-remoting.sar in JBoss Remoting, as used in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (JEAP) 5.2.0, Red Hat JBoss BRMS 5.3.1, Red Hat JBoss Portal Platform 5.2.2, and Red Hat JBoss SOA Platform 5.3.1, does not properly implement the JSR 160 specification, which allows remote attackers to exec...

CVE-2014-3530
Published: 2014-07-22
The org.picketlink.common.util.DocumentUtil.getDocumentBuilderFactory method in PicketLink, as used in Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (JBEAP) 5.2.0 and 6.2.4, expands entity references, which allows remote attackers to read arbitrary code and possibly have other unspecified impact via...

CVE-2014-4326
Published: 2014-07-22
Elasticsearch Logstash 1.0.14 through 1.4.x before 1.4.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted event in (1) zabbix.rb or (2) nagios_nsca.rb in outputs/.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Where do information security startups come from? More important, how can I tell a good one from a flash in the pan? Learn how to separate ITSec wheat from chaff in this episode.