8 ms·

This is disturbing; the journalist is advocating the outing/doxxing of a private citizen who is breaking no laws whatsoever (at least as far as I can tell from

• chenster 11y ago
  Water is not just a commodity or utility. IT KEEPS US ALIVE. Without water, we all die. If someone else uses more water, in this case, a hell lot more and meaninglessly wasting it, and in current CA drought condition, ultimately means less water for rest of us to drink and to keep us alive, then there's an advent problem. I'm sick to hear that people say that's OK because on one broke the law. It was like to be OK to discriminate people on basis of race and religion before the equal rights amendment. CA declared a drought state of emergency since early 2014. Doesn't that mean anything to anyone?
  • talmand 11y ago
    Are you suggesting that people go outside the law to obtain their own form of justice?
    • chenster 11y ago
      It's actually the law: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-snowpack-20150331-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-snowpack-2015033...
      • talmand 11y ago
        In the context of my question, I fail to see the part in the article explaining that vigilante justice is in the law.
• oconnore 11y ago
  The person emptying the complimentary bowl of lollipops into their bag isn't breaking any law, but they are breaking social expectations and making things worse for everyone else.
  • RIMR 11y ago
    And yet, if you punch them in the face for it, you'll be arrested for assault. If you think that wasting 36k gallons of water a day should be illegal, write to your representative, don't go looking for private citizens to "make an example of". In the end, you'll be the bad guy, and the law will still say it's legal to waste that much water.
    • adevine 11y ago
      No one is advocating punching anyone in the face. The journalist is essentially advocating public shaming, i.e. "Hey, look at this asshole who dumped the whole complimentary bowl of lollipops in their bag." I find the Hacker news response to this pretty interesting. I think you'll find that many/most programmer/engineer types will think about this from a "does it follow the rules of the system" perspective: He's following the law as it exists, so if there's a problem, the issue is with the system. Many/most other people, however, will approach this from a social expectations perspective: This person is acting in a socially unacceptable way, so they deserved to be shamed. I'm not saying which way is better or right, but as someone firmly in the programmer/engineer camp, it's been important for me to understand how so many people approach the "rules" of the world from a very different perspective.
      • JabavuAdams 11y ago
        The "programmer/engineers" also seem to ignore how the laws get made, and how changes are opposed. This is an adversarial system. If your adversary can block progressive reform then shaming is really the only answer. Also, stopping short of doxxing, it's simply useful for people to know that this level of private consumption exists.
        • 11y ago
• TallGuyShort 11y ago
  Although I absolutely agree that Internet vigilante culture is a bit out of control, I'm not sure what else could be done here. There have already been numerous reports of Oprah getting tankers to deliver water to her home, little significant action taken to respond to the drought because apparently California all of a sudden decides that government has limits, and people who live in that neighborhood are not going to respond to anything but ridiculously steep rate increases. Sometimes people do douchbaggy things that are completely legal. Public criticism of their actions is fair game IMO and is also perfectly legal.
  • amluto 11y ago
    At least the criticism should attempt to be fair. I have no idea what Oprah is doing with her water tankers or where they come from, but in Palo Alto, for example, getting water by tanker can be an entirely reasonable and even environmentally responsible thing to do. Check it out: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/pollution/recycled_n_other_non_potable_water.asp http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/pollution/recycl... There are places, Palo Alto included, which produce large amounts of recycled water suitable for irrigation but haven't yet built out the infrastructure to pipe it directly to users. So criticizing people may be reasonable, but it's worth checking whether the criticism is justified first.
  • JumpCrisscross 11y ago
    > I'm not sure what else could be done here Call your state representative and let them know you want market pricing for water. A 2011 study found that the average California household used used more than 360 gallons of water per day [1]. Let's round that up to 500. Each household gets 500 gallons per day at a price that covers the pipes, i.e. the price you pay today. Nobody cares whether you drink it, use it to water your lawn, or grow 92 heads of broccoli [2]. From the five hundred and first gallon you start paying a price that reflects the fact that fresh, potable water is a scarce and rival good. [1] http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/01/23/how-much-water-do-californians-use-each-day-and-what-does-a-20-reduction-look-like/ http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/01/23/how-much-water-do-cal... [2] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-californias-water-going http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...
• cperciva 11y ago
  I agree. After all, it's not as if this property owner isn't paying for the extravagant water usage. And if you think that $90,000/year isn't enough to reimburse society for this water usage... raise the damn prices. And if you think raising water rates would unfairly hurt the poor... take the increased revenue and hand it out as a per-capita water tax rebate.
  • swalsh 11y ago
    "it's not as if this property owner isn't paying for the extravagant water usage." That's kind of the problem though, he isn't. Water is notoriously subsidized. It's hard to make the case that 12 million gallons of clean water would only cost $90k. The system kind of has built into it this spirit of "everyone needs clean affordable water". There was no limit put in place, so there's some people taking crazy advantage of it.
    • irixusr 11y ago
      Agreed, which is hardly his/her fault, but rather California/LA politics' fault. Raise prices, or put a multi-tier pricing, or whatever; but harassment for social engineering's sake is creepy.
      • chucknelson 11y ago
        Agree that harassment isn't the way to go about this, but I think we can put a good amount of blame on the individual here - selfish water usage doesn't seem like a great idea in California.
        • irixusr 11y ago
          See my post bellow estimating how large their lot should be assuming golf-course irrigation. I came with ~5 acres This individual is a jerk, no doubt, but 5 acres is small, so their overall usage compared to the total for LA county isn't very significant. LA county as a whole is abusing water. I'd suggest a tiered pricing scheme. Current rates for water usage bellow what 99.9% of what the LA uses (to make it politically expedient), and two orders of magnitude larger otherwise.
• thenmar 11y ago
  I don't really like the faux-investigative tone of the article either, but it's misleading to accuse him of calling for vigilantism. He drove around a rich neighborhood, concluded that he would not be able to knock on anyone's door and talk about water, and then suggested a tiered tax system so that luxury use of water is discouraged, while also noting that there are additional externalities such as runoff that aren't being accounted for.
• adanto6840 11y ago
  I agree. If it's an issue, just implement a tiered system that charges extremely high rates for extremely high usage and be done with it... That's basically what Las Vegas does and it seems to be quite effective.
  • toby 11y ago
    Tiered water pricing is likely unconstitutional in California. http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article19194072.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drough...
• jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Laws are not the only topic of discussion in an open and free society. An open and free society may talk about any topic it wishes, including usage of shared resources. Edit: If you disagree post a reply.
  • icebraining 11y ago
    The problem is not discussing the usage of shared resources, it's advocating the outing of someone, which might expose them to violent reactions.
    • jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Can you show a specific instance of advocation? The video, in particular, was careful to not use names or addresses.
      • icebraining 11y ago
        You'll have to ask bradleybuda for that.
        • jsprogrammer 11y ago
          Bradleybuda can read my response to their comment and the rest of the thread it produced (including this comment). If they have an example of what they claim they can point to it.
• mc32 11y ago
  Exactly this. I heard a report on kqed, the local npr station and the team, wife and husband were quite excited about their next step in outing the users. It does not seem to disgust them in any way, rather, they see themselves as heroes for doing avant guarde reporting and turning the tables on the powerful, etc. And the kqed producers were quite happy with the reporting. I dont use much water and think it's very wasteful, but this public shaming and virtual mob mentality is disgusting, but their audience who suffer from a guilt complex, lap it up with vigor.
• cptskippy 11y ago
  While I agree with you, I think the shaming and bullying has emerged from the sense helplessness people feel in being able to change laws or receive justice. These days the common belief (and possible reality) is that the rich dictate the laws and we're powerless to affect change. By publicly shaming, raising awareness/rage, and generating a large undercurrent of dissent, people have found they can affect change.
• rayiner 11y ago
  Shaming people for doing things that are legal but nonetheless antisocial is the only way to avoid the situation where you have to make everything that's bad also illegal. It's a time-honored way of enforcing social norms and avoiding overly-legalistic social frameworks.
  • PavlovsCat 11y ago
    Even granting that: > Is it worth squeezing the cities when farms consume 80 percent of the water that people use in California, while they generate only 2 percent of its economic activity? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/03/agriculture-is-80-percent-of-water-use-in-california-why-arent-farmers-being-forced-to-cut-back/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/03/a...
    • jtheory 11y ago
      I may be missing some context here (didn't read the wp article you're linking). But evaluating farms based on the "economic activity" they produce just sounds all kinds of wrong. Californian farms produce an incredible quantity of food, don't they?
      • PavlovsCat 11y ago
        Not just that.. I didn't fully read it myself, and it ends with this: > In recent decades, farmers and cities have both made strides in reducing their water use. Already, the agricultural industry has embraced techniques like drip irrigation. Farmers are using about the same amount of water as they did in 1960s, but they have doubled the amount of money they get. > The argument for focusing urban conservation may come down to practical concerns. It takes time and investment to make farms more efficient, and the state has already put money into encouraging farmers to buy efficiency upgrades. During drought emergencies, water use can be curtailed faster by simply telling people not to water their lawns. > Besides, the cities are growing. Unless wasteful practices (like grass lawns) can be untaught now, urban users will start to consume more and more of the state’s water. Egg on my face, and apologies to anyone mislead by my being sloppy, that wasn't my intention.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• jerrysievert 11y ago
  it's a yearly thing in portland to out/dox water hogs. only 1 resident managed to go over 1 million gallons this time. see: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-25154-hydro_hogs.html http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-25154-hydro_hogs.html
• JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  I agree. I think this is definitely bullying. However, why is this not public information anyway?
  • talmand 11y ago
    I don't understand, are you saying you want water usage and billing to be public knowledge?
    • dtparr 11y ago
      In some parts of the country, utility usage is effectively public knowledge (I'm guessing granularity varies a good bit though). Before we bought our first home, our agent advised us to call the local electric company to ask for past usage to know what to expect in utilities. They were happy to provide an average bill just off the property address.
      • talmand 11y ago
        As I asked the other comment, is this a public utility or private company? Did they provide details of the customer beyond usage and address?
        • dtparr 11y ago
          My experience was with NYSEG[0], which is a private company as I understand it. I've heard similar reports from others in other parts of the country but can't answer specifics about them. They did not provide customer information like names/phones, it was simply input address, receive usage. Of course, with property tax records and such, we already knew who owned the place. [0] - http://nyseg.com/ http://nyseg.com/
    • JustSomeNobody 11y ago
      Where I live (and I won't say), I can access a web page that tells me my utility usage as well as that of my neighbors. So, yeah, that's what I'm saying.
• dclowd9901 11y ago
  They are also using inciteful and provocative language. Honestly it sounds like they want a full scale riot of estates in Bel-Air. Between this and the electric plus fights, what on earth is going on with you goons in California. Jesus.
• steven2012 11y ago
  When I first read the article, I, too, wanted this person exposed. However, after reading your article, you are 100% correct in your analysis. It really is a type of internet-style doxxing, and you're also right in that this person isn't doing something illegal. It's not illegal, but it is wrong in the moral sense. It is equivalent to someone parking in handicap spots and simply paying the fines. It's irresponsible and selfish, and a lot of people are cutting back to do their part. Someone coming along and abusing the system like this because of inefficiently low rates doesn't mean this person should be allowed to continue.
• padmanabhan01 11y ago
  Aren't you using different standards for the journalist and the individual? if what the journalist is doing is disturbing, so is what the individual is doing.. if the individual is breaking no laws, neither is the journalist by outing him or shaming him. Both are acting legally within the system..
  • kbenson 11y ago
    One action can be rectified, the other possibly not. Public shaming can lead to unforeseen circumstances (you are relying on the judgement of everyone who is informed, which can include unstable people), so shouldn't be taken lightly. Additionally, it's not like a small village, where once the corrective behavior is taken it's fairly easy to make sure people know. There's less incentive in the media to make sure the people that were informed about the problem are informed about the fix, so the punishment can continue long after the correction.
• s73v3r 11y ago
  Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's not wrong. We are in one of the worst droughts in recent history. To do something so blatant and so selfish is completely something that should be shamed.
• chenster 11y ago
  If your only argument is someone not breaking the law, then tell me this, is doxxing illegal? Based on my research, it is not necessarily illegal depending on context.