Lurking on the Internet

What does it mean to be “Lurking “ on the Internet? The word lurking has an inherent ominous connotation. According to Funk & Wangles, lurk means to lie hidden, as in an ambush, or to move secretly or furtively, to slink. It also means to exist unnoticed or unsuspected. Each of these definitions seems to imply a “dark” side, a mysteriously or sneaking around in the background unnoticed. If one were to lurk on the Internet, then one might be found in the “black hole” of cyberspace. Other feelings that are sometimes connected to the use of the word lurking are doomed, hopeless, forbidding, apocalyptic, portentous and threatening. They all seem to reinforce that feeling of “darkness” and mysteriousness. Only the “Shadow Knows!”

The purpose of this paper is to convince the reader of two things. First, I would like to show that the term lurking when used in conjunction with the Internet should not automatically connotate its “dark” side meaning. Second, I would like to convince the populace that “lurking” should not even be used as a description in conjunction with the Internet. Namely, one can not lurk on the Internet.

This word and its usage came to my attention about a year ago, when I subscribed to be a participant in a “Virtual Symposium” on Ethics and Technology. I was personally intrigued when I found out about this event and truly wanted to see how it was going to work and whether it was going to be successful. The format of this symposium was built around four papers that were placed on a web site. It was suggested that each registered participant read these papers before a particular date. Starting with this date, the participant could then submit questions or comments in regard to any one or all of the papers. The author or other participants could respond to the questions and/or comments posed. It was definitely an asynchronous format. The participants were to respond via a list server that was established for this symposium. The discussion was to last for nine days. As people submitted comments, their responses were automatically numbered in sequential order, and mailed to all of the subscribers. By the time response #35 appeared it was noted that there were approximately 130 people who had registered to take part in this "Virtual Symposium" (VS).

I had registered for this “Virtual Symposium”, because I had never participated in this type of event before. I was truly interested to see whether an event of this nature would actually be successful. As a registered participant, one was entitled to receive via e-mail all of the comments and questions submitted by the other participants. I’m not sure how success was to be measured by the organizer of this symposium, but I was just interested in the overall operation and outcome of this event. I certainly did not have any evil intent when I registered as a participant, and I doubt if any of the other 129 registrants had any evil intent, especially at an ethics symposium. I was basically inquisitive. Having chaired several national and regional conferences, I realized the amount of work that was required to put on such an event. Success in conducting in-person conferences is usually measured by attendance figures, and then summarized by evaluation forms filled out by the attendees after the conference. This “Virtual” format was definitely different.

Symposium Starts

The discussion of this virtual symposium started to center around e-mail and privacy. The basis for this discussion was a paper presented originally by Dr. Richard Spinello at the Second Annual Ethics and Technology Conference at Loyola University Chicago in 1997. (Spinello, 1997). It wasn’t until response #35 occurred that there was any remark regarding the scarcity of respondents relative to the 130 people who registered for this symposium. The respondent simply indicated that he was guessing that the “proportion of active participants to lurkers is probably not all that different from a regular, non-virtual conference audience.” The respondent further stated that in a real world conference, this silent majority could be noticed “listening raptly, fidgeting, etc.” While in this virtual symposium environment, these lurkers may not even exist. It was anticipated that participation at this VS would have been greater than at a real live conference.

There was other comment that alluded to the fact that may be lurking is immoral, in hope that this would arouse some response from those lurking out there. One suggested remedy to this “lurking” practice was that future conferences of this nature have a more structured participation format. When response #36 appeared the respondent admitted that he had been “lurking”. He immediately questioned the original respondent as to why should this type of behavior be regarded as suspicious. He was quick to point out that in a normal face-to-face conference there could be numerous attendees who might sit quietly and say nothing. Is this activity immoral? (Ed. note: I would have to say No.) The next respondent (Respondent #37) also admitted to lurking, because although the virtual conversations were interesting, he had nothing really to contribute at this time. He also indicated that he had noticed similar phenomenons at live conferences.

Respondent #39 believed that it was not immoral to sit quietly in a live audience, even though it is not exactly analogous to this idea of lurking on the Internet. The respondent acknowledges that lurkers abound on the Internet, while one normally expects that at a live conference the audience will be in clear view. If anyone where to view the conference through a “pep hole”, one would think this to be suspicious. The one thing that seems to be evolving from this discussion on “lurking”, is that future conference of this nature might consider a format, what ever that might be, that would discourage lurking and stimulate participation. (Respondent #39, alias #35)

On the other side of the coin, another respondent said that lurking should be allowed and also believed that it is not spying, and it is not immoral. No reason was given in this response; it was just what the respondent believed in. The respondent pointed out that there is a risk when subscribing to a list-serve, and that being the unknown audience can be a drawback for a keynote speaker. (Respondent #40)

Peephole to a Conference

One of the previous respondents (Respondent #39) suggested another analogy. This suggestion was that “lurking” during a virtual conference is like drilling a hole in a closet wall and watching the other participants without them knowing that you are there. This truly sounds like a “peeping tom” affair. The author of this paper truly does not agree nor does he like this type of analogy. Yet, another respondent points out that during a conference in 1991 at which he spoke they had a video feed to the lobby (ed. Isn’t that a peephole?). It was also pointed out that other conferences record sessions, so that other lurkers can view them later. None of these, according to the respondent, would detour him from speaking at these conferences. (Respondent #41) The author would seem to agree. Numerous sessions of many conferences are recorded, and these videos are then used during academic classes.

List-Serve [1]

It was pointed out that the use of a list-server was crucial to the success of this “Virtual Symposium”. It is not clear, at this time, whether any major changes need to be made in the current acceptable modes of behavior on the net. Others have indicated that such electronic mailing list has been around for decades and that there are numerous books on netiquette. For those who dislike lurking, this may be based on their experience in a college seminar or law school class, which thrives on actual vocal discussion of all in attendance, especially when the participants are going to be graded on their participation. Remember at a real live conference, the model of interaction is basically one to many. If any lengthy discussion might ensue, it is gentlemanly suggested that the discussion take place “off-line”, so the conference can continue on schedule. (Respondent #41) It was also pointed out that many list- serve mailing list can be quit large, i.e. 500+. For those who administer such a list, they are grateful for all

There was one ”lurker” who identified himself directly, but indicated that he was “Auditing” and “learning” during his non-participation. (Respondent #42) Others compared the task of watching and observing a speaker at a conference to that of a bird watcher. There is nothing wrong or immoral about observing someone, like going on a people safari. (Respondent #46) There was one software engineer who remarked that many people just sit at live conferences, and they should be able to just sit at a “virtual symposium”. (Respondent #47) This engineer also had experience in putting on seminars, and he understands the desire of the organizer of this VS to have more participation. But, remember that one should not go to an extreme and ostracize those who do not participate. (Respondent #43)

Philosophical Side

A respondent trained in philosophy and ethics said that lurking is not analogous to spying. The respondent indicated that:

Neither of these intents could apply to this group of 130 scholarly academics who have an interest, intense or otherwise, in ethics. Another observation by this philosopher was that if lurking was so pervasive that it caused the speaker to go elsewhere, perhaps the speaker should review his topic to make it more interesting.

For the Last Time!

Is this really an ethical issue? On an individual level one respondent believes it is not. He really doesn’t think that anyone lurking at this VS is being immoral. He suggests that on a macro level, it could become more of a moral issue. The respondent felt that if the audience were of a substantial size (i.e. 200,000 rather than the actual 130) he would hire a speechwriter. The results would be a much less forthright statement of his thoughts and views, and that wouldn’t be fair to the other participants. (Respondent #50)

Another analogy that was posed is what is wrong with a student who sits in the back of the classroom, absorbing all of the information, but never offers up his own? The student respondent feels that there is nothing wrong with that. He believes that a “Virtual Symposium” like this allows many people the chance to read the opinions of others whom they would normally not have the opportunity to talk to. The student felt that he was learning both from teachers and other students. He believes that reading the work of an individual is no different than hearing it in person from that same individual. He felt that he learned something from this VS not only about the topic, but also about the people involved. He would like to know what is wrong with that? (Respondent #67)

There have been several comments and concerns regarding the relatively small amount of registered participants to this VS. The current level at the start of this nine-day discussion was 130. It was hoped that a much large group would have registered. Since this was a first time event there could be numerous reasons why the level of respondents was relatively low. I personally feel that this actually is a descent size for a symposium of this nature. The topic might be considered by some to be self-limiting, to narrow of a topic. May be the time period coincided and/or conflicted with other activities of the faculty members, and therefore they did not register since they realized they would not be able to participate. One respondent suggested that a way to reduce or get rid of the lurkers was to improve the structure in some way. The suggestion was to have a list of those who have pre-registered be made available on the web site before the discussion starts. Another suggestion was to charge a registration fee and then manage the conference as if it were a live one. (Respondent #84, alias #39 & #35) Another respondent was quick to point out that we should keep separate the issues of unidentified observers (UOs) versus invisible observers (IOs) or (“lurkers”). He suggested that there are four points to consider in regard to the audience that are important to the presenter, and they are:

He pointed out that IOs provide none of the four points listed above. In a real conference the UOs (unidentified observers) could allow the presenter to know points 1,2, and 4. Different parts of the above list are important for different reasons. It is not the responsibility of the audience to provide all four points in all cases. Each point should be considered independently in each circumstance. (Respondent #86)

Communication Angle

Respondent #85 agrees with the previous student opinion (Respondent #85, alias #44) that there is nothing wrong with silent observation. He points out that the original argument regarding lurking was that it was different because it was undetectable by the other participants. This could be compared to the idea of a secret observation rather than being a silent observer. The question raised at this point is whether this is important to communication? It is felt that the silent audience member is providing some type of feedback to the presenter, which the presenter can use to adjust his/her presentation. He also made the following statement: “where there is no feedback, there is not even a minimal level of interaction." (Respondent #85)

Uses of ‘Lurking”

The following are some examples of how the word “lurking” has been used, not only in the information technology (I.T.) area, but in other professions and industries as well. “MIS managers need to be aware, however, that “lurking” on the Internet can have its drawback because 98% of what is generated in Usenet posting is not useful”. (Betts, 1994)

In this example the word lurking conveys its most generally accepted definition. The title of an article that appeared in Fortune magazine warning readers about some of the downfalls of investor message boards read : “The Danger Lurking in Investor Message Boards”. Again its use here is what I would regard as a normal and acceptable definitional form. At the end of this article the author warned readers “ at their worst, financial chat rooms are the investment version of poisoned Kool-Aid." (Greenbert, 1998) In an article that was attempting to spot and stop the evils of cramming, the title read: “What’s that lurking on your phone bill? The gist here was to explain some of the hidden charges that may appear on your telephone bill. Again the idea of hiding is explicated well within the title and fully explained within the article . (Mannix, 1998) Still other articles, which relate to the idea of hiding, were: “Beware: viruses lurking” (Barr, 1998) , “What’s lurking in your lunch: loads of calories and tons of fat – unless you’re up on the secrets of the deli” (Grambling, 1997) , and ”Snake in the Sky: accurate weather forecast fall victim to a slithering stream of air lurking in the upper atmosphere. (Condella, 1997). Another way to look at additional articles was to realize that the usage of the word “lurking” cut across numerous subject areas, such as: AIDS, children’s story books, religion, econometrics, poetry, marketing, farming, publishing, higher education, Federal Reserve, social psychology, dining or meal planning, and finally health issues. (Appendix A)

In all the examples cited above, the tenor of hiding is intended and conveyed rather clearly. In the original incidence when the accusation was made that the attendees of the “Virtual Symposium” were lurking, just does not fit. The “Intent” of the attendees in this case was not to be mysterious or sinister. They were not trying to be “peeping-toms”. They were simply quiet and attentive listeners. They might be described as non-active participants in this virtual symposium.

Ethical?

There was one comment that classified lurking as a form of spying, bit it was quickly pointed out that this is not true. I personally believe that this whole episode comes down to an original bad choice of word usage. Those who were accused, unjustly, did not have an evil intent associated with their activity as pointed out in the previous paragraph. It would have been much more acceptable and less derisive to describe these registrants as passive attendees or non-participative registrants. This is really what they were. Respondent #65 also agrees that the term "lurkers" is an offensive and pre-judgmental term. Again those who actually registered obviously had a general interest, as yours truly did, in this symposium and in its topic as expressed by the four papers that were to have been read before hand.

Realize at the very beginning the nature of this event, in this case a “Virtual Symposium”. A symposium normally describes an event where several articles or essays on a similar subject are discussed in front of a live audience. The unique part of this symposium was that it was “Virtual”. To remind a few, the word “Virtual” means being in effect, but not in form or appearance. For those who registered, one could normally assume along with the organizer that a symposium was going to be conducted, but under a different form than what would normally be expected. The normal expectation would have been to have the registrants sitting live in the audience, listening to the presentation of these papers. The difference in this case is that the registrants stayed home in front of their computers, assuming they read the papers, waiting to do one of three possible actions. First, the respondent could initiate a response or comment in regard to one of the four papers that they were suppose to read. Second, the participant could respond in regard to another respondent’s comments. Thirdly, the respondent could just sit and read the on-going comments as they were posted and do nothing else. This later activity is our passive or non-participative registrant. These people where definitely not lurking. They may have shown passive tendencies. They were truly unresponsive to the original papers that were the center of the symposium.

If one registers for a list-serve it would be because that individual has some interest in receiving whatever they have signed up for, whether they be active or passive players. If one joins a chatboard, they do so because they find the topic interesting and may want the opportunity to respond, if not now then at a later time. There is no requirement that one has to be an active participant. It is because of this that I believe that “lurking” on the Internet is not possible, and that its use as it occurred in this VS was just a poor choice of words. A better or alternative choice as suggested by respondent #77 might have been " Audience Member".

Appendix A

Denoon, Daniel J., “ Lurking Virus Casts Shadow on 5 ^th Retrovirus Conference ,” IDS Weekly Plus , Feb. 16, 1998, p.2.

[ Describes the third model as lurking in the background]

Poetry

Swiss, Thomas, “Another life lurking”, The Southern Review , Spring 1997, Vol. 33, No.2, p.420.

Literature

Oder, Norman, “A New ‘Alientist’ lurking”, Publishers Weekly , July 3, 1995, Vol. 242, No.27, P.21.

Higher Education

Morgan, Joan, “ Lurking Fascism”, Black Issues in Higher Education , March 23, 1995, Vol. 12 No. 2, p. 34.

Curriculum

Laar, Bill, “Danger lurking in the bushes”, Times Educational Supplement , Feb. 25, 1994, No. 4052, p. A12.

Federal Reserve

Greenwald, John, “That sinking feeling : lurking below reports of busy factories and new jobs are signs that the economy is slowing”, Time, Feb. 6, 1995, Vol. 145, No.5, p.49.

Psychology

Griffith, Terri L., “Monitoring and performance: a comparison of computer and supervisor monitoring”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology , April 1, 1993, Vol.23, No.7, p.549.

[ Research results suggest that ‘Big Brother’ is not lurking inside every computer- monitoring system.]

Etiquette

Sanoff, Alvin P. “Taboos at the Dinner Table”, U.S. News & World Report , July 22, 1991, Vol. 111, No. 4, p.52.

[A study by Margaret Visser of the etiquette of eating has found that behind the mannerly façade of the family meal, violence is lurking]

Allergies

Lyons, Stephen, “Unwelcome houseguests”, Health, April 1991, Vol. 23, No.3, p.66 [ Don’t blame pollen for your allergies yet – the real culprits may be growing , lurking and crawling in your home]

[1] The word List-Serve can actually be spelled List Serve, or List Serves, List Server. It seems that the word is used with and without the hyphen, and also used in the form or serve or server. Check www.askjeeves.com for numerous uses of this word.