Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LinkedIn Agrees To Block Stalkers

samzenpus posted 1 year,20 days | from the stop-following-me dept.

Social Networks 78

sholto writes "When Buzzfeed wrote about LinkedIn's stalker problem in June, LinkedIn claimed it had enough privacy tools "to effectively minimize unwanted connections". But a petition by a 24-year-old Ohio woman sexually assaulted by her boss and harassed through the network appears to have won the day for privacy advocates. LinkedIn said it was adding a blocking feature to protect members against stalkers. 'I can confirm that we’re in the process of building (a block feature),' responded Paul Rockwell, head of trust and safety at LinkedIn to a post in LinkedIn’s help forum called 'Stalking on LinkedIn'. 'Users on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and other sites can easily block other users. LinkedIn appears to be an outlier among other top social media sites,' said petitioner Anna R."

cancel ×

78 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No link in article but it's underlined? (5, Informative)

locofungus (179280) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992237)

The buzzfeed article appears to be:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/linkedin-has-a-stalker-problem [buzzfeed.com]

Re:No link in article but it's underlined? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992385)

We're using Buzzfeed as news now?

Re:No link in article but it's underlined? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992537)

Those are called meta-links. It's a brand new feature from HTML5. The idea is that the link will generate enough noise to feed on itself and self-populate by linking to itself.

Re:No link in article but it's underlined? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992579)

Sounds like the editors should have... *glasses* LinkedIn to the buzzfeed article. Yeeeooww...

*cough*

Re:No link in article but it's underlined? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992601)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a rule that will allow the agency to restrict imports of potentially harmful perfluorinated chemicals that could be used in carpets. The regulation will require companies to report to EPA all new uses, including in domestic and imported products, of these chemicals once used for soil and stain resistance in carpets. These chemicals have been shown to persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in humans and animals – they represent a potential threat to American’s health. This action follows the U.S. chemical industry’s voluntary phase out of these chemicals and a range of actions by EPA to address concerns with these chemicals.
“While this category of chemicals has largely been voluntarily phased out by the U.S. chemical industry and not in use in this country, they could still be imported in carpets. Today’s action will ensure that EPA has the opportunity to take action to restrict or limit the intended use, if warranted, for any new domestic uses or imports,” said Jim Jones, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “This action will also provide a level playing field for those companies who stepped up to cease the use of these chemicals in this country, while at the same time protecting the American public from exposure to these chemicals in imported carpet products.”
The final rule issued today, known as a Significant New Use Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act, requires that anyone who intends to manufacture (including import) or process any long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic (LCPFAC) chemicals for use in carpets or carpet products submit a notification to EPA at least 90 days before beginning the activity, providing the agency with an opportunity to review and, if necessary, place limits on manufacturers or processors who intend to reintroduce or import products with these chemicals.
Today’s action is one of several EPA has taken to protect the public from perfluorinated chemicals. In 2006, the eight major U.S. companies producing LCPFAC chemicals committed to the EPA’s voluntary PFOA Stewardship Program, pledging to reduce global emissions and product content of LCPFAC chemicals by the end of 2015. As part of this phaseout program, the industry stopped using LCPFAC chemicals on carpets and aftercare treatment products. EPA has also issued other Significant New Use Rules to require EPA review and prior to the reintroduction of other perfluorinated chemicals included in the voluntary industry phaseout. EPA anticipates another Significant New Rule on additional perfluorinated chemicals in early 2014 as well as Significant New Use Rules on other chemicals that will include imported products.
Information on today’s final rule and other actions EPA has taken on perfluorinated chemicals can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/pfcs.html#final

Re:No link in article but it's underlined? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992847)

The other link appears to be:
http://community.linkedin.com/questions/23572/stalking-on-linkedin.html?sort=oldest [linkedin.com]

Paul Rockwell Aug 20 at 04:19 PM

Hi everyone, my name is Paul Rockwell, and I head up Trust & Safety here at LinkedIn.

I'd like to start by acknowledging the ongoing demand for a block feature, and I can confirm that weâ(TM)re in the process of building one. We've heard you, and we both recognize and appreciate the need for privacy controls in this digital age, which is why we remain committed to placing the controls in your hands.

It's about time! (1)

Steve_Ussler (2941703) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992241)

This has been going on for way too long.

Re:It's about time! (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992519)

Of course it has. The hook for LinkedIn is being able to access people to whom you are not directly connected. Paid accounts can reach out to ever more tenuous links. "Never cold-call again." implies gaining access to people who don't explicitly want to hear from you.

Re:It's about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993215)

I just wish LinkedIn would stop spamming my work email (which must have been collected from a 4th [yes 4th) party vendor).

Re:It's about time! (1)

Steve_Ussler (2941703) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993471)

Very true. I get way too many salesman calling me.

Re:It's about time! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,20 days | (#44995097)

They're going to hire a man to stand on a catwalk and tell you to GET OUT OF HERE over and over again.

Re:It's about time! (1)

Steve_Ussler (2941703) | 1 year,20 days | (#44995173)

I have no idea what you mean

Re:It's about time! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996473)

Re:It's about time! (1)

Steve_Ussler (2941703) | 1 year,19 days | (#45008083)

thank you.

Social Network? (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992279)

I thought LinkedIn was just a job search tool for recruiters and the unemployed. Do people blog on that thing?

Re:Social Network? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992391)

Ive been cyberstalked on it twice, a feature that is long overdue

Re:Social Network? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992551)

That's why I never signed up for LinkedIn in the first place...it's bad enough having creepy peeps from your past reading your public google+ stuff or whatever but I really don't want them knowing all the details of my career and clients.

Re:Social Network? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992853)

Well, if you have a Google+ and/or Facebook account, you're already an imbecile.

Re:Social Network? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44994105)

Google+ is mandatory if you want to have a youtube channel, shithead.

Re:Social Network? (1)

_merlin (160982) | 1 year,20 days | (#44997487)

My response is to not have a YT channel. I'm not interested in being strong-armed into using G+ because I want to use YT.

Re:Social Network? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992435)

You can add people you know into your network as well as post updates and other things. It has many features of other social networks.

Re:Social Network? (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992505)

After reading the story it makes more sense. Even if you don't use it as a social network people can still use it to stalk. They can send you messages. Find out who your coworkers are. Find out where you work.

Re:Social Network? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992703)

I thought LinkedIn was just a job search tool for recruiters and the unemployed. Do people blog on that thing?

Your former blowhard colleagues will be found there still blowing their own horns about promotions and accomplishments, real or exaggerated.

Re:Social Network? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993903)

Yes, and it is also an awesome dating site for Jews, East Asians, and Indians.

Make your mother proud and get some doctors in your network.

They are going to block the NSA? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992341)

Until they do, they are not blocking the worst stalker.

Re:They are going to block the NSA? (3, Insightful)

game kid (805301) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992583)

Hell, I'd actually be impressed if LinkedIn blocked LinkedIn. Spammy bastards.

Caution: website makes your info public (1, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992425)

Plugging your info into a public website makes that info public.

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992513)

Just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean they aren't watching you!

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (2)

locofungus (179280) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992529)

I'm not sure how the block is supposed to work. The buzzfeed article is on about how people are able to see where people live etc but I don't see how a block will help.

The block that seems to be being asked for is to block particular people - but anyone who wants to stalk someone can just register with a different account.

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992659)

... but anyone who wants to stalk someone can just register with a different account.

Never! That would be a violation of the ToS! How could you even suggest such a thing?

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (2)

Rob the Bold (788862) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992677)

Plugging your info into a public website makes that info public.

And therein lies the problem. Allegedly, it's for business and employment "networking". But if no one can see your info, you can't "network" with them and they can't with you. If you're hoping that an employer might come along, see you as a potential candidate and give you a call, then you can't hide your resume under a bushel.

In reality, I don't know if anyone actually finds a job or other opportunity that way. All I ever experienced was seeing current and former colleagues bragging about promotions and other BS. That and requests to "connect" from people I just wasn't that interested in -- it seemed to me that like facebook, they just wanted to have the largest network of friends. I probably don't do networking right, but I couldn't see the value of it. Some people are compelled to use it for work -- so I've heard. And every so often some HR type gets interviewed in Forbes and says something like: "If you're not on LinkedIn, you don't exist."

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992873)

The employment angle is just the marketting hook to get people to participate. The site's real value is to sales reps looking for leads.

Set your title to something that sounds like you're a purchasing decision maker and you'll be amazed at the attention you suddenly get.

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (1)

ganjadude (952775) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993227)

as someone job hunting right now for a ERP position Ive actually found linkdin to be pretty helpful vs other job posting sites. its a step up from a normal job posting site but a step below a recruiter IMO. but than again YMMV

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (1)

gorzek (647352) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993879)

Yeah, I get a lot of job leads from LinkedIn, too, and they're almost always unsolicited. It's usually not shot-in-the-dark stuff that I'm not qualified for, either. They're targeted inquiries. I like it.

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (1)

Stiletto (12066) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996191)

For me, the unsolicited job leads from LinkedIn are obviously targeted, but poorly. I've got 12+ years of progressively senior embedded programming + mobile programming experience listed, and I recently (~3 yrs) transitioned up the chain into management. What do 95% of my LinkedIn job inquiries look like?

"I noticed you have MOBILE development in your background. We are looking to fill the position of THIRD JUNIOR DEVELOPER FROM THE LEFT - ANDROID OS. I would love to chat with you about this amazing opportunity!"

Next to useless, really.

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (1)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,20 days | (#44994199)

I probably don't do networking right, but I couldn't see the value of it.

Well, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 40% of all jobs are never offered to the public, 30% are filled with a person already known to the employer and only 30% are filled by total strangers. However, the often quoted number that 70% of all jobs happen through networking is dubious at best. Managers, past and present coworkers and anyone else you come in contact with through your work will have some opinion of your skill and work performance even if you've made no effort to network at all, simply by performing your job duties. If you restrict networking to only mean actively seeking contact with other professionals above or outside your work duties I'm sure the number would be much, much lower.

I mean, even if you live in a fairly large town I'm sure the people who work with the same things end up knowing each other and are probably rotating around among a relatively narrow set of companies. That said, I have seen networks being used as icebreakers. If you get a recommendation from a friend that works in the same company you're applying to that means more to them than if a random reference of your choosing recommends you. After all a misleading reference would reflect poorly on that employee, while for anyone else it'd be of little consequence.

Re:Caution: website makes your info public (1)

B1ackDragon (543470) | 1 year,20 days | (#44998243)

Agreed. I gave linkedin a try some years ago, until they suggested a professional contact of a specialist doctor I had recently seen. I can only assume the doc wasn't up to code on HIPAA or something, but I found it unnerving and useless. The only frustration I experience now, not being a member, is attempting to look up basic information for people whose only web presence is on linkedin.

You know what would be even better? (0)

sribe (304414) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992523)

A "stalker" label that could be applied to a user's profile--after due process resulting in an actual court order. That would get the user off linkedin, because it would become useless to him.

Pictures... (2)

craznar (710808) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992567)

People need to be careful putting pictures on their Linked In account and on their Facebook etc accounts.

Google image search will quickly identify you on all the sites you use the same picture on.

Re:Pictures... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992909)

People need to be careful putting pictures on their Linked In account and on their Facebook etc accounts.

Google image search will quickly identify you on all the sites you use the same picture on.

Not exactly new: See this search on a random bystander [spokeo.com]
It used to be that tons of unreliable names and aggregate were linked to several matches for any single given person (I tried a few people I know as a test.) The unreliable data is still an issue, but the *picture* breaks our old expectations of privacy^W internet intractability. An image tells stalkers pulling up your public records on shady sites that they can confidently join / pay for the records for entry matching that face. From there, they compare to the other imperfect clones generated for that single person and notice what information consistently appears in all of them. It's a like a phonebook except you don't have the option to pay the phone company to abbreviate your name to hide in ambiguity, or make your listing private.

Still, this caused me to start abbreviating my name on public profiles almost a decade ago, and replacing my face with generic 2D logos even on private intranet wikis. I don't share much, and it's worked wonders in the long run. Not sure if that would work if you started doing it today: Even if you alter your social network profile pictures *now*, aggregation sites do NOT need to remove the evidence.

Why not just endorse him (5, Insightful)

stickrnan (1290752) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992575)

...for harassment?

Honestly, since this is a "professional" network, maybe there should be a way to note someone's lack of professionalism?

Re:Why not just endorse him (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992713)

+1

Re:Why not just endorse him (2)

kaizendojo (956951) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992727)

I agree. This isn't Facebook after all; people on LinkedIn tend to be more business task oriented. Of course, bloking someone is a great option, but if they are stalking you, social networks are the least of your issues. I can find out anything I want on anyone for the low low price of 29.95.... LOL I joke, but when are they going to put controls on some of the "background check" services? They are giving out the same personal information, culled from many sources (including social networks) at a much higher level and without any conditions on sale.

"To bloke." (1)

catfood (40112) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993007)

Of course, bloking someone is a great option...

That's a great new verb. Thank you.

Re:"To bloke." (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | 1 year,18 days | (#45012687)

It's akin to the Facebook "like"; as in "He's my bloke". (He said, covering his misspelling deftly...)

Complicated. (4, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992605)

I feel like I need to explain something to people who may not use LinkedIn but use other social networks. LinkedIn has this feature that tells you when your profile has been viewed. If you have the "pro" version, it even tells you WHO has viewed your profile, unless that person has their settings set otherwise. The reason for this is because it is mostly a tool for job seekers and professionals; knowing someone has viewed your profile might be a good conversation starter at that company..

Secondly, large parts of people's profiles (namely, their work history) at LinkedIn are typically public to a large degree. This is because if you have your profile locked down to only friends, then a head hunter will never see you, so it limits the use of the service.

Now what this woman is complaining about is this. The person who harassed her would, every single day, check her LinkedIn profile. This would, in turn, send her an alert, saying that he viewed it.

What she wants LinkedIn to do, is not block him from viewing her profile - that makes no sense because her profile is public. What she wants them to do is stop having the alerts go through. IE - she doesn't seem to care that this guy can see her profile - she just doesn't want to know about it.

I can see both sides of this. From her point of view, this is just another way that this guy is causing her grief. From LinkedIn's point of view, it is a strange request and may be difficult to implement architecturally, because you want the information to remain public, and want the alerts to remain, but only not alert for this specific black-list of people.

Re:Complicated. (1)

SYSS Mouse (694626) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992679)

You are only half-right. I read that Linked-in is planning to expand into universities and such. As a result, it is only a matter of time before Linked-in has to implement blocking feature.

they are going to shoot at their feet eventually.

Explain blocking (2)

brunes69 (86786) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992737)

Explain what you mean by blocking and how it would be implemented, because it doesn't work the way you seem to think it does at services like say Twitter. When you "block" someone on twitter, it does not stop that person from viewing your public tweets. All it stops them from doing is following you and sending you DM messages. They can still see all your public tweets - because they are PUBLIC. Why on earth would one care if block something to one user that is posted to the public. All they'd need to do to see it is log out of their account!

LinkedIn is in the exact same boat. Your profile on the service is public - otherwise there is no point in using it. So it makes no sense to "block" someone from viewing your public profile. All they would need to do is log out to see it.

Re: Explain blocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993285)

Wrong - on linkedin, you have a public profile that is viewable on the internet, and a network profile that is viewable by your connections and their connections.

Your network is from where you will get job offers, not random people who found you through google.

Re: Explain blocking (1)

brunes69 (86786) | 1 year,20 days | (#44994715)

If you don't have a well-fleshed out public profile, you are restricting heavily how many people will see your profile. The whole value in LinkedIn is in connecting with people NOT IN your immediate network.

Re:Explain blocking (1)

mynamestolen (2566945) | 1 year,20 days | (#44997621)

You are only a quarter right. A block on twitter also stops you retweeting, which is stupid because the info is public (though you could argue that the user being retweeted doesn't want to know about it, in which case there would be need for reprogramming. A twitter block also makes it harder to follow conversations (fortunately you can do so my opening the link in a new tab - haha @Asher_Wolf

Re:Complicated. (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992719)

From a programmers perspective such a feature is not complicated. It may be complicated to explain to users. It also doesn't solve the problem. Her going to the police is the more long term solution.

Re:Complicated. (1)

brunes69 (86786) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992767)

It depends a lot on how their back-end is pipelined. What seems simple I can see being actually quite complicated, depending on how they have things implemented.

Re:Complicated. (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993547)

Depending on the stalker's actions and location, the police may do nothing. My wife and I were harassed by a woman online (long story but she's quite crazy: thinks she's a prophet of god etc etc etc). It was hard to deal with because we're in the US and she's in Canada. Eventually, she harassed someone in Canada who took legal action but even then all that happened was that the police stopped by and TOLD HER who reported her. (Like that wasn't going to make her double her efforts to harass the people "god" told her to harass.) She's still operating, bothering people online and jumping from account to account as they get suspended. She's been doing this for years and the police haven't done anything because she's stopped short of threatening physical violence. (She has contacted employers and companies that people work for, though, thus threatening economic harm.) Going to the police is a good idea, but don't just assume that they will handle the stalker.

Re:Complicated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993845)

Since this site has a lot of religious bigots I call Bull Shit on this.

Re:Complicated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44999495)

Since this site has a lot of dick heads, you must be a dick head.

Do you see a problem with that argument?

Re:Complicated. (1)

fa2k (881632) | 1 year,20 days | (#44994913)

Sure it solves the problem. No more spam for the victim, the stalker may find better things to do, or maybe he doesn't even realise he's blocked and continues wasting his own time but nobody else's.

The police are notoriously bad at dealing with these things. IMO, that's not bad. The stalker is really a spammer at worst. The police can't just go and extrapolate that and arrest him for ponentially being a murderer in the future. I was being teased by someone for a period of months while at school, I'd love to chuck the police on them then, but I realise now that's not the way I want society to be. If every little bothersome action is criminal, then we will literally live in a police state. The police will control all.

I'm not saying that all stalking must be legal, just that we must tolerate a small level of annoying people in order to have a free society.

If LinkedIn was an open system, the victim (in a broad sense of the word) could have implemented filtering on the client side, and there would be no problem (go open systems!)

Re:Complicated. (2)

tag (22464) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992907)

What she wants them to do is stop having the alerts go through. IE - she doesn't seem to care that this guy can see her profile - she just doesn't want to know about it.

From what you're saying, what she really needs is a filtering rule on her email. Much faster and cheaper to implement.

Re:Complicated. (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993269)

What she wants them to do is stop having the alerts go through. IE - she doesn't seem to care that this guy can see her profile - she just doesn't want to know about it.

From what you're saying, what she really needs is a filtering rule on her email. Much faster and cheaper to implement.

Indeed flames > /dev/null has always been the best way to deal with trolls.

Re:Complicated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44996221)

+1. If I had mod points, I would vote this up.

Re:Complicated. (2)

Belial6 (794905) | 1 year,20 days | (#44994499)

If turning off notifications from a black list of people is architecturally difficult, then LinkedIn has bigger issues.

Does Anna R have big jugs? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992607)

If so $100 to whoever finds her profile, I'd like to offer her a.. job...

Re:Does Anna R have big jugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993759)

They are like rockets. You could day dream on em all day, male or female. LinkedIn should be called Slash(Cock) to clarify. I actually think LinkedIn is more useful than the news here now. F-ing liberals destroy everything.

linked-in "architecture" (1)

CKW (409971) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992613)

Two separate times over a couple years I have gone into my linked-in profile and de-selected ALL the "email you this" and "email you that" options.

I kept getting email notifications for large numbers of things. (Yes, I waited 7+ days after each profile change.)

TWICE I've gone to their technical support staff. TWICE they've failed to figure out how to configure their systems to not send me e-mail notifications. The second time they flat out apologized for not being able to do it successfully, they were able to recognize that however their back end is configured and architected ... it's just impossible to do certain things.

Yeah, no, I'm not trusting private data to them.

Someone besides lazy recruiters uses linkedin? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993025)

I think it's great that we've found LinkedIn users besides lazy recruiters doing their trolling. LinkedIn is such a vast wasteland of nothing that I applaud the stalkers for doing something useful with it. Since joining LinkedIn a few years ago, I have discovered no useful use for the site at all. The only contacts I've ever gotten are from recruiters who search the LinkedIn database for some combination of zip code and skills and troll me.

Different Profile (3, Insightful)

EMG at MU (1194965) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993703)

Why wouldn't he just create another profile? Maybe one that looks like some generic recruiter at some generic recruiting company. I get notifications about people like that all the time. How can you differentiate between a stalker and the normal creepers/hr agents on linked in?

Re:Different Profile (1)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,20 days | (#44994005)

that's trivial, don't connect with any recruiter/headhunter choads. You do have your search-engine friendly resume online on your own website right? with "No Recruiters" at the top?

That's been working for me for 15 years, to hell with recruiters.

Re:Different Profile (1)

EMG at MU (1194965) | 1 year,20 days | (#44994217)

that's trivial, don't connect with any recruiter/headhunter choads. You do have your search-engine friendly resume online on your own website right? with "No Recruiters" at the top?

That's been working for me for 15 years, to hell with recruiters.

Not connecting to "choads" is not a solution because the whole idea of the site is that your profile is visible and that people not connected to you can see it.

How *I* use or don't use the site is irrelevant, I was just pointing out that she's probably going to be playing whack-a-mole with fake accounts: block one and another pops up. If someone want's to stalk you, linked in is pretty much the perfect place.

Well, that sucks. (1)

TrentTheThief (118302) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993763)

Now what will I do for fun?

best way to avoid stalking on a social media site. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993947)

is not to use said social media site.

problem solved.

better yet, skip them all.

linkedin's value is rapidly plummeting anyway (and wasn't really worth that much at its peak either), facebook is a fucking joke, myspace is a graveyard, twitter is for twits, tumblr is for porn, youtube is for cat videos and wannabes, instagram is for self-shooters .......

life existed just fine before them and will continue just fine without them.

Re:best way to avoid stalking on a social media si (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44995621)

Hey, don't dis the cat videos! They are my life!!
Aunt Margie

Meatspace (1)

Flere Imsaho (786612) | 1 year,20 days | (#44995697)

Is there nothing the meatspace police can do? Stalking is stalking, regardless of the methods used. The intent is the same.

I can't get it (1)

ruir (2709173) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996329)

If people are being harassed in linked.in, whats the difficult part of erasing the profile? The truth is linked.in anti-contact or anti-spam measures are largely non-existent or work very badly, or endorsements are critically flawed and you can't freeze/block/pre-aprove them because linked.in wants the network to grow as large as possible no matter what. It is their business model.

Re:I can't get it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44997053)

And if niggers don't like burning crosses on their lawns, they don't have to live near us white folks. If they's is light skinned, won't nobody say nuthin anyways, lessn' they bothers us with they's uppity marches and showin up at the voting booths, which is only for decent law-abidin christian white people.

(Sorry for the language, but I grew up in a neighborhood like that, and I recognize the approach.)

Re:I can't get it (1)

ruir (2709173) | 1 year,20 days | (#44998501)

meh, don't play with serious things. I have been already harassed by mobile, and I solved it in days. Just changed the number, and presto. That is a very efficient way of dealing with stupid people. And a linked.in account is a far less valuable asset than a mobile number. Get the proportions of things man, and grow out of that mentality, for Chrissake. One that lets be harassed by something as disposable as a social network account or a mobile account is not thinking well.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?