09:33 AM

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
Current Issue
Dark Reading Tech Digest September 7, 2015
Some security flaws go beyond simple app vulnerabilities. Have you checked for these?
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
Published: 2015-10-12
vpxd in VMware vCenter Server 5.0 before u3e, 5.1 before u3, and 5.5 before u2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a long heartbeat message.

Published: 2015-10-12
The JMX RMI service in VMware vCenter Server 5.0 before u3e, 5.1 before u3b, 5.5 before u3, and 6.0 before u1 does not restrict registration of MBeans, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via the RMI protocol.

Published: 2015-10-12
Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) B Blade Server Software 2.2.x before 2.2.6 allows local users to cause a denial of service (host OS or BMC hang) by sending crafted packets over the Inter-IC (I2C) bus, aka Bug ID CSCuq77241.

Published: 2015-10-12
The process-management implementation in Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) Expressway X8.5.2 allows local users to gain privileges by terminating a firestarter.py supervised process and then triggering the restart of a process by the root account, aka Bug ID CSCuv12272.

Published: 2015-10-12
HP 3PAR Service Processor SP 4.2.0.GA-29 (GA) SPOCC, SP 4.3.0.GA-17 (GA) SPOCC, and SP 4.3.0-GA-24 (MU1) SPOCC allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
What can the information security industry do to solve the IoT security problem? Learn more and join the conversation on the next episode of Dark Reading Radio.