UK Man Prevented From Finding Chipped Pet Under Data Protection Act

Dave Moorhouse was elated when he was informed that a microchip provider had information on the whereabouts of his stolen dog. This joy soon faded when the company informed him that it could not divulge the Jack Russell terrier's location because it would breach the Data Protection Act. Last week a court agreed with the chip company and refused Mr Moorhouse's request for a court order compelling them to reveal the name and address of the new owners. Steven Wildridge, managing director of the chip company said: “This is not a choice, it’s an obligation under the Data Protection Act. If the individuals involved do not want us to pass on their details to the original owner then we cannot do so unless compelled to following a criminal or civil proceeding."

Comments

So they can just keep stolen property then?

[elrous0]

Why wasn't this treated as a criminal (or even civil property) matter? Aren't the new owners guilty of receiving stolen property? I mean, even if they didn't know it before (assuming they bought the dog from the thief and didn't realize it was stolen), they obviously do now. I've never seen a case where stolen property was found and the cops just let the holders keep it. Maybe fences should start chipping *all* their stolen goods before reselling them ("All these items chipped for your protection. Safe as buying from a reputable store!").

And even if the dog wasn't stolen, it's still the original owner's property, no? Did the UK abolish property rights for pets or something?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[EndlessNameless]

He has to file suit in order for it to be a civil or criminal matter.

A judge will almost certainly issue an order for the information to be released once he advises the court that his pet has a locator device.

Although the situation is a bit odd, I approve of a law which requires court action before any who isn't me can be provided my location.

The new owners likely have no idea that the dog was stolen, and handling the situation through the courts is much less likely to explode than allowing the company to hand out home addresses to aggrieved parties.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[characterZer0]

The proper course of action would be for the original owner to file charges and attempt to get a court order to get the address.

The company is refusing, as it should, to provide private information without a court order.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would assume that, under a similar law in the U.S., the original owner could contact the police and initiate a criminal investigation. With a warrant, the police could then force the chip company to turn over the information on the stolen property (or face obstruction of justice charges, etc. - not to mention a lot of bad press). The only roadblock would be whether the police would investigate such a crime, and whether the statute of limitations had run out.

Of course, IANAL.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[operagost]

An in-law of mine did TIME for receiving stolen property... and no, she didn't even know it was stolen. Obviously, we don't really want to prosecute the new owners, but the fact is that a crime was committed, and the police are ignoring a lead to the criminals. How does this mouthbreathing judge expect the man to file a civil case when he can't get the company to divulge the whereabouts of the dog?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[omnichad]

From the article
 

Mr Moorhouse contacted the police who also refused to disclose the information after concluding that there was no criminal case to answer.

A judge at Huddersfield County Court ruled that the matter was outside his jurisdiction.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[omnichad]

From the article
 
 

Mr Moorhouse contacted the police who also refused to disclose the information after concluding that there was no criminal case to answer.

A judge at Huddersfield County Court ruled that the matter was outside his jurisdiction.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Algorithmnast]

Once more, the law trumps _apparent_ common sense. Unfortunately, the common sense approach here forgets one simple thing: any claim of foul play (or if this were a duck, Fowl Play) for property rights has to go through a court system.

I really sympathize with the guy, but if I wanted my pet back, I'd report it as stolen and get the legal ball rolling.

These sorts of laws are meant to stop well-intentioned entities (such as the data companies) from releasing the right information to the wrong people. Want to prove you're the right person? Then prove it as part of the legal process. I'd rather be annoyed than have someone trick the car recovery company into delivering it to them... (yeah a weak analogy - shrug)

Of course, the lawyers (like bookies) still get rich from both parties.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[elrous0]

According to the article he did both those things, and the cops and court still let the people keep the dog. Just bizarre (and sad).

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are plain wrong.

The company was, presumably, contracted with the original owner to track his dog. Having discovered the dog's location, they are not disclosing it because the dog is located with some other people. However, as far as the company is concerned, the dog is still stolen. Which means their primary obligation is to the original owner. And if they can't give that information to him, they can certainly give it to the police.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[yivi]

It would be so wonderful if there was a way to find out what really happened...

Alas, we have to live in ignorance.
 

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[cgenman]

My understanding under US law, is that theft does not change ownership. And similarly, buying stolen property similarly does not change ownership as the seller did not have ownership to sell. If you buy a stolen laptop, even if you didn't know it was stolen, the true owner can walk over and take it back as you never actually had ownership of the property, and you were defrauded by the seller who didn't have the rights to sell.

UK law may be different, but under US law it's still his dog.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

How does this mouthbreathing judge expect the man to file a civil case when he can't get the company to divulge the whereabouts of the dog?

A "John Doe" lawsuit perhaps?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[wvmarle]

This person has filed suit already, the court rejected his request because (ftfa) the court ruled it was not within its jurisdiction to issue such an order. So he simply went to the "wrong" court and will have to go to a higher court or so. I do not see a reason why he can not get a court order to get the new owner's details. I'm sure he can get advice from either the judge who rejected his order or the police which court to go to next, to get the actual order. This whole story seems to be blown totally out of proportion; the man was obviously getting desperate or so and is not willing to go the proper way to get to this information.

The chip company I fully support: they should not ever give out personal information without court orders. That's basic privacy protection.

And who the dog now belongs to... well that's a whole different matter.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[mea37]

Ever had a pet chipped? I'm guessing not.

Instead of "presuming", why don't you take a look at what it is these companies actually contract to do. Because if you do, you'll find that you are... how did you put it? ... plain wrong.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Minwee]

And if they can't give that information to him, they can certainly give it to the police.

But Mr. Moorehouse lives in England. The police have better things to do than waste their time dealing with stolen property, like using surveillance cameras to track down people who try to take pictures of police officers.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Moryath]

As I understand it, the company should be on the hook to (a) call the people who registered and say "your dog is stolen, you need to call the real owner and return it immediately, and (b) prepare the contact information in preparation for any such court-ordered action.

It sounds like, instead, they are aiding and abetting theft.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[SenseiLeNoir]

I agree in the support of the chip company. The Data Protection Act is one of the few acts we have in the UK that is amazing. And its so strictly enforced.

I am sure that the man has not followed procedure properly, however, the The Article is scant on some details.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he took action against the organisation with the data not the new owners. As the organisation are not at fault they have no liability, as they have no liability the case has no merit not his request for information. He took action against the wrong people, simple as. To get the information all he has to do is go down to small claims court, pay £25, file a notice with the court for discovery against the chip maker for the details of the new owners and the magistrate will probably grant it.

Or he could attempt to get the police to do their jobs, they would be able to get a warrant for this data without issue, but he probably has greater chance of winning the lottery in every country on earth on the same day.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Algorithmnast]

Ah - so the police are the morons in this case.

While the lawmakers have to create smart laws, the police have to actually help the courts uphold them.

Or else you get the situation where the people wear their pants half off of their butts, and then you can easily tell who might mug you - from the fact that their pants are worn normally!

Weird, when the normally behaving people look like criminals.

But when the police won't bother enforcing the law, then you get oddities - like this guy who wants his pet back but may become a "criminal" if he continues to press for what used to be his rights.

As for the judge... unlike in America, it looks like UK judges correctly understand that they are only to rule on court cases, and not on their perception of injustice. [In the U.S., courts have ordered things done when they had no legal standing to address the issue.]

So the court is unable to address the issue until the police do their job.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[v1]

The chip company I fully support: they should not ever give out personal information without court orders. That's basic privacy protection.

The point many seem to be overlooking is that the original owner was sold a product specifically designed to identify their property. I very much doubt any information was given to the owner that "and oh by the way, when you find you NEED to locate your pet, we're going to use this law as an excuse not to provide you with the service you are purchasing from us today".

So while the chipper technically is behaving legally, the original terms of sale etc are not being honored, and at this point, going after them on these grounds may be the best recourse. But then, winning a judgement against the chipper for breach of contract or unfit for purpose won't get them their pet back, but just might win a large enough judgement to force some change.

The two sorts of change that may occur are to either add a term in their contract saying they won't help under this circumstance, or adding a term saying if you bring your animal to us to chip and we find out it's already chipped, you agree beforehand that we can turn your information over. Of course the latter makes more sense for the consumer.

But the whole matter of the judge claiming no jurisdiction may just mean they have to take their case to a judge that does feel they have jurisdiction. But you've probably got the original owner in one state, the new owner in another state, and the chipper in a third state, so this may just prove to be a complete runaround with no one willing to claim jurisdiction.
 

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Under Scots law, and possibly also in England and Wales, a sale does change ownership if it's made in good faith by both parties. So if you buy a stolen laptop AND you didn't know it was stolen AND the seller didn't know it was stolen, then it's yours. If the seller is the thief, then obviously this doesn't apply, but it might if the seller is a fence who can convincingly claim he bought the item in good faith.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Adustust]

I'm sure the case would probably end the same, but I think the chip only held client data. It wasn't a locator chip, and the only reason they called him 3 years later about his lost dog was because the new owners were trying to update the address on the chip. To me, it's a real dick move to try to change that info and then tell the company not to give out your info to the owner who's trying to find his dog.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[bsDaemon]

So, I pay for a chip for my dog to let me know where it is if it gets lost or stolen. My dog gets lost or stolen, and the company knows where it is, but won't tell me, and they're "doing the right thing?" That's some ol' bullshit, dude.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[elrous0]

I had read the original article (though I know it might endanger my /. reputation to admit it). It didn't really explain the situation any better than the summary--though it did clarify that he did petition both the police and court, both of which refused to return the property or even help him get the address of the new "owners."

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the police have to decide it was a criminal matter? If its stolen, then if he filed a police report, wouldn't that be good enough? How does he know it was stolen and not just that the dog ran off?

Either way, you think he could sue for his dog back. I doubt he'd upset a judge if he explained the situation and said he just wanted his property returned.

Of course I'm a dumb American that grew up in a state whose laws explicitly state the for civil and misdemeanor criminal matters, common sense trumps the law. It let's the legislature and lawyers concentrate on their real jobs and not worry as much about unintended consequences while providing some protection to citizens who can't know all the intricacies of the law.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[bsDaemon]

In the immortal words of Gin Rummy, I'll be dead on his ass like "Spencer for fuckin' Hire". I'll hunt him down and feed him his testicles, *and* I'll do it in a jiffy. And I don't care if his momma there, his grandmomma, innocent bystanders, little kids, baby sitters, bill collectors, whatever. I'll leave his whole block filled with hot brass if I have to, and you know why? 'Cause *I JUST DON'T GIVE A FUCK!* You guys sure you don't want any breakfast? I have English muffins and peach jelly.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[b0bby]

The Daily Telegraph is interested in sensational stories, not making things clear. The Daily Mail (not much better) has this quote:

"A West Yorkshire Police spokesman added: ‘If this gentleman wishes to report a theft to us, we will look into the matter. However, we are obviously unable to give members
of the public people’s address details.’"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314154/Microchip-firm-wont-tell-dog-owner-stolen-pet.html

So it appears that he hasn't reported the dog as stolen, which means that the cops & the company are right not to give him the information. But that's not much of a story, is it?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[debrain]

While the company cannot make disclosure of the new owners' address, there might not be anything stopping the company from forwarding a letter from the prior owner to the new owners, which letter asks the new owners to respond.

The most effective and efficacious resolution of this dispute in favour of the prior owner is an agreement by the new owners to return the dog to the (apparently) rightful prior owner. This avoids legal costs of production and argument, the delay of a hearing, the uncertainty of Courts, and the quagmire of an appeal. As well, in certain jurisdictions, such a letter puts the onus on the new owners to respond - and if they do not they may be responsible for some of the costs of any legal action required to get their address.

I would argue, then, that the "proper course", so to speak, is to write the new owners care of ("c/o") the company who knows their address. If the new owners do not respond, then you can engage the legal system to compel the company to forward the letter.

All that failing, once a legal action commences there is generally an obligation on the company to make disclosure of information relevant to the resolution of the case. In this instance, the address of the to-be respondents (the current owners) would be relevant, as (1) they are entitled to notice that legal action has commenced so they may respond, and (2) their information is necessary to enforce any order that would require the return of the dog (and, arguably, to prevent the to-be respondents from fleeing their current address with the dog so as to escape enforcement).

Food for thought.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[gandhi_2]

Ahh, so he has to fill out the Data Protection Act Stolen Dog Exemption Request form, stand in queue at the local magistrate's office.

Then upon 7 fortnights, if the request is granted, he must then fill out the Data Protection Act Stolen Dog Information Request form, again in a queue this time at the Council offices.

Should this form be approved, following a 600 pound sterling filing fee, then he can go on to contract a Solicitor. The Solicitor files a Data Protection Act Stolen Dog Action form with the local Constable....

If the Constable finds wrong doing, the Constable then files a Data Protection Act Stolen Dog Investigation and the Solicitor can have a Barrister take all the above forms, signed in triplicate to stand in queue at the local magistrates office....

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that those things you whine about US courts doing have a long precedent within common law history, no? The people whining about "activist judges" know shit about their country's judicial heritage.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[wvmarle]

You are mixing up identification with locating.

Identification: "look I have a dog here, please tell me the serial number, and if available the name and other details of this dog". That the chipping company obviously has done. The current owner of the dog went to a vet, had the already present microchip read, and requested they be registered as owner of the dog.

Locating: "my dog is lost; this was its serial number, please tell me where it is and who claims to be its current owner". That the company is not allowed to disclose without court order.

If you want to sue the chipping company, you're surely on the losing side. The chip put in place is for identification as you say yourself. That's different from locating, in a way the exact opposite even. And the identification part obviously worked as advertised.

And by the way you don't have to worry about that "states" thing. This story is not set in the US, but in the UK. And no that's not a part of the US.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[AvitarX]

He didn't ask for a persons location.

He asked for his properties location (the dogs).

The chip company shouldn;t be exposing the whereabouts of any person. As the chip was installed in a dog.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[AvitarX]

What personal information are they giving out? The location of a piece of property (the dog)? or something else.

He doesn't need a name, or even an address. Just a location.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

So do I need a court order BEFORE I tell people I saw your post on /.?

Or is it just before I tell people I saw you on the street?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Myopic,adj, lack of imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight

Indeed.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course I'm a dumb American that grew up in a state whose laws explicitly state the for civil and misdemeanor criminal matters, common sense trumps the law. It let's the legislature and lawyers concentrate on their real jobs and not worry as much about unintended consequences while providing some protection to citizens who can't know all the intricacies of the law.

Sorry, but that's not the America I know and live in. Maybe you're in Central America? In the United States, "Common Sense" is so far removed from the law it might as well exist on the moon.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[erikvcl]

I find it interesting that "police not doing their jobs" is a universal problem. That's something that has always bothered me. Unless it's a violent or significant crime, the police just aren't interested. I guess it's similar in the UK (I'm in the US).

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[eyrieowl]

The key point there seems to be who gets to define what "good faith" is. I'd imagine that the courts would say that, for example, you can't buy a stolen Rembrandt in good faith because you should be reasonably expected to inquire the provenance? It just seems like there must be some situations where the courts would not hold that the most recent purchaser of an item is, in fact, the lawful owner. Also, assuming that they *do* allow the current ownership to stand, where does that leave the original owner? Are they completely SOL? Is their only hope for redress to pursue damages against the thief? If there were other 'bad faith' owners prior to the 'good faith' sellers/owners, would they also be liable for damages?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? I know, feeding the troll, but still. Britian is much more free that the US. Americans are so deluded and manipulated to believe that we still have freedom. We don't.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[commodore64_love]

(1) Why is this in "idle" instead of "Your rights online"?

(2) Nobody wants to place blame on the data company. They want to obtain a Search Warrant in order to gather the data, so they can track down the thieves.

The end.

I guess the judge is a strict constructionist, who only sees the letter of the law (forbids data disclosure). We need mre like him to stop police abuses - like breaking into homes without warrants, killing the family dog, all to obtain a half-ounce of grass.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[bws111]

They don't know the location of the dog (the chip is not a GPS device). The only information they have is the contact information for the PERSON who registered the dog, which may not be any indication of the physical location of the dog.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[biryokumaru]

How on earth would a regular person have any idea how to do all that crap? He shouldn't need to hire a lawyer to tell him how to get his stolen dog back.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[tsstahl]

And no that's not a part of the US.

No way, dude! U. S. Americans is everywhere

--Ms. South Carolina contestant

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me the correct coarse of action is to file a case against John/Jane doe for theft/posession of stolen property (the dog). The subpena the identity of the regisered owners from the chip manufaturer.

In the US that would trivially get you the identity of the people who posess the dog, and in coaurt you could recieve the cash value of the dog as reward for the case (I don't believ you can get the actuall do back as the rulling of a civil case). Alternatively once you have the identity of the defendant and they are notified of the case against them you can likely offer to settle out of court for the retun of the dog and then drop the case.

Of coarse I'm not a lawyer just a guy with a bit of common sence who had a couple family members studying to become lawyers/paralegals at one time so my infomation may be incorrect. Also it's US centric so not nesesarily relevent to the UK.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[twistedsymphony]

Why doesn't he just sue the new "owner" as a John Doe just like the RIAA does... the Chip company knows who they are (just like the ISP knows the name and location of alleged illegal down-loaders), and it would leave it up to the courts to determine if the information needs to be released or if the dog can be returned to it's owner.

I'd be willing to bet if the new owner gets served, they'd just hand the dog over willingly to avoid having to go to court.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[bws111]

Except that is not the case. You don't pay for a chip to let you know where the dog is, you pay for a chip to help you identify the dog. That is the only service provided by the chipping company.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BasilBrush]

The company don't know the location of the dog. The chip isn't a GPS tracking device. It's a type of RFID device. All they know is the details of some PERSON who tried to update the computer record associated with that RFID number. And the company have no choice here. They are not permitted to divulge that information under the Data Protection Act.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[randizzle3000]

42 - the number of forms a man must fill out to retrieve his stolen dog.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, no. If your car gets stolen and sold on to some other punter, even via a chain of middle men, when the police find it they will return it to you, the original owner. Every one else in the chain, even if they are innocent, may lose money.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[AvitarX]

Yeah, I read TFA later...

It all sounds fair.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[espiesp]

And finally they will need the official presidential release form....

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's basically a worthless service.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[randizzle3000]

Maybe the new owners tried to get the previous owner's info and were faced with the same dilemma (disclosure of personal information of the previous owner) and they decided to just keep the dog?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[elrous0]

And by the end of the process he will also have to fill out Form 90254: "Application for Canine Death Certificate," and pay a 100 pound filing fee at window 10 on the 2nd floor, Yorkshire magistrate's office.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know - don't feed the trolls and all that, but even by the normal levels of jingoistic shortsigthedness this reaches a new plane of stupidity!

Britain is not a free country, so we shouldn't try to make presumptions on British law based on American law. Apparently, in addition to not having the right to free speech (saying true things even when it damages the reputation of a corporation),

Citation needed. And judging by the lynch mob mentality prevalent in some parts of the US this is not unique. The concept of big company bullying is not exactly unknown there - and it's not just limited to commerce -- I'd suggest that the UK has much greater freedom of expression - how likely is it that an openly non heterosexual person (or one who doesn't loudly proclaim to be a Christian) would reach high office? How many people without backing from wealthy parents or in the pocket of big companies can become congressmen/senators?
  I'll concede that the libel laws are enacted (in some cases) in a less than perfect way but I doubt that many individuals in the US have deep enough pockets to stand up to big corporation lawyers either.

and not having the right to self defense (peacefully carrying a weapon, or using a weapon when another person tries to harm you)

As with most civilised societies, the UK has outgrown the need for violence/murder as a way of solving disputes -- it's not just the law but public attitudes that limit gun ownership. Why would anyone want to have, let alone use, something whose only purpose is to maim and kill, inflict suffering,misery and death?
  Very few people would seriously consider using a gun against a fellow human (and I suspect few of the gun advocates in the US would either despite the loud rhetoric)

, British subjects also do not have property rights (the right to recapture goods stolen from you) or civil redress of grievances (the right to sue a person who is holding your stolen property for return of that property).

As quoted elsewhere, this appears to be a case where by the person involved needs to acquaint themselves with the appropriate procedure.
  Generalising from one case (which is so unusual as to be newsworthy) into an ill informed rant may work for shock jocks and some news channels -- in the UK it would be treated with the disdain it deserves.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Chris Burke]

I very much doubt any information was given to the owner that "and oh by the way, when you find you NEED to locate your pet, we're going to use this law as an excuse not to provide you with the service you are purchasing from us today".

So while the chipper technically is behaving legally, the original terms of sale etc are not being honored, and at this point, going after them on these grounds may be the best recourse.

I very much doubt that the Terms and Conditions didn't include a clause that data availability was subject to any applicable laws. In fact I find it utterly implausible that the sales agreement did not include such language.

Yes, it probably didn't specifically say "When your dog is stolen and sold to someone, we won't be able to tell you where it is", but it may well have mentioned the Data Protection Act specifically. Such legal warnings are always vague, both because being vague makes it less likely to scare off customers, and because it pretty much has to be since the legal environment is fluid. Nevertheless, the chipper "technically behaving legally" is certainly honoring the terms of sale.

But then, winning a judgement against the chipper for breach of contract or unfit for purpose won't get them their pet back, but just might win a large enough judgement to force some change.

Right. So aside from the fact that they pretty much don't have a leg to stand on with regards to the whole breach of contract issue, this also will utterly fail to accomplish what is undoubtedly the thing they care about, which is recovering their pet.

Going after the chipper and trying to force them to reveal the location of the pet is the wrong tack to take. They need to treat this like what it is -- the theft of their property -- and go through the courts in that way. The chipper should not be involved except as a source of information for the investigation. Not as a defendant.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[stiggle]

He never reported the dog being missing to the police - only to the local vets.

If he had reported it to the police 3 years ago when the dog went missing then he'd have the crime number and be able to prove it really was a lost/missing/stolen dog rather than the sale of a pet a few years later. Then when the dog shows up again, he can reference that crime number and have the police follow it up. "I was robbed 3 years ago" doesn't sound that good a defence to claim ownership if you didn't report the robbery.

If the dog was lost then after a period of time after being handed in then the finder can claim the item as being theirs, so no - the dog doesn't have to be the original owners property if if was legitimately lost & found & attempted to be returned.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[gumbi west]

except that it sounds like he is complainging about the chip maker, not the new "owner". If he did the latter, it sounds like the police would help.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[stanlyb]

He OWNS the ..... dog. Period. He is the owner. He has all the documents. In fact, he also owns the funny chip too. And he cannot request the whereabouts of his property!!!! Man, tell me where you live, and i will be happy to give you a free demonstration and relief you from the burden of taking care of your little things....and the big ones.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[L4t3r4lu5]

You missed selling recreational substances. God forbid if you're ever caught with more than one bag of ganj on you, as more than one bag obviously means that the other one is for selling, not that the dealer just sold it that way.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[characterZer0]

No. It shows that the recovered dog is in fact yours. It is like adding a VIN to a dog.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Chris Burke]

If you want to sue the chipping company, you're surely on the losing side. The chip put in place is for identification as you say yourself.

Nonsense. The chip was put in place for both identification and location, which is why the information about location exists to be denied on Data Protection Act terms. Just because the GP said "identification" in a /. post does not make that the one and only purpose of the chip.

That said, suing the chipping company is still a losing proposition, since the company is complying with the law and their contract certainly said that they would do so even if it meant failing to provide the service being sold.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[xero314]

Some where in that chain of sales, someone knew that it was stolen. At that moment that person was never able to legally transfer ownership. So even though down the line you have two people that had no knowledge of the theft, neither of them was ever a rightful owner so the sale is invalid.

A steals item. A sells to B, nether A or B are legal owners. B, believing they own the property sells to C. Just because B and C believe that the are making a legal sale does not make that sale binding. If it does, then England and Wales have worse fucked up laws than the the US. That kind of law basically legalizes laundering.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[bws111]

How are the police supposed to do their job if they do not know there has been a crime? According to other newspapers, this guy STILL has not reported the theft of the dog to the police. The fault lies entirely with the guy who decided the best course of action was to complain to the newspapers rather than filing a police report.

"A West Yorkshire Police spokesman added: ‘If this gentleman wishes to report a theft to us, we will look into the matter. However, we are obviously unable to give members
of the public people’s address details.’"

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[AbbeyRoad]

You are not reading the article.

How can a judge issue a court order outside of his jurisdiction?

-paul

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

But...

Did the chip company sell the product/service as a way to insure that your pet is returned to you in case it is lost/stolen? I'd bet that is their sales angle. So have they breached their contract?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[wvmarle]

If he owns the dog and has all the paperwork, then getting a court order should be a no-brainer. And with that the new owner's information.

Now if the current owner (yes I call them like that) ALSO has ownership papers or otherwise claims to have obtained it in good faith, it's getting more difficult. Mind that the original owner CLAIMS that the dog was stolen - but just saying "hey my pet is stolen" doesn't necessarily make it so. But that's for them to figure out later.

By the way, I have owned pets, never had formal ownership documents though. It's not land, or a house, or a car.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[AbbeyRoad]

"Treated" by who?

You have to file a charge in order for there to be a crime.

The guy needs to contact the public prosecutor to get him to take up the case and get a court order in the correct jurisdiction.

It's only because he doesn't understand the legal process that he can't get his info.

-paul

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[MozeeToby]

You forgot one: Unless it's a violent or significant crime, orit generates revenue the police just aren't interested. In my experience, police spend 90% of their active time doing the later.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[v1]

They need to treat this like what it is -- the theft of their property

Interpretation of law becomes muddy when someone "finds" something. Many states have "good faith" type laws that try to clarify when it's obviously not abandoned property, having to make a good faith effort to return it, posting "found" notices etc and waiting awhile etc. "Finders keepers" rarely wins the at the end of the day, but it can involve a fight on behalf of the original owner. Items that can autonomously run away are granted significantly more leeway here. (your lawnmower won't just run away from home to be found by someone a few blocks away in a park, lonely and hungry)

No one actually said anything about the pet being stolen, that just seems to be what everyone is suspecting, which in the case of a pet is not usually a safe assumption.

It may also get into 3rd party issues. They may have gotten the animal from a shelter. Or from an ad in the paper. Possession of stolen property loses you the right to compensation if you had to pay for it, (speaking from experience here...) but unless you can prove theft, the issue of compensation may also come up.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is funny because it is true!

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[internewt]

The identichip certificate for our dog just happens to be out, and I have looked at it due to this story.

It appears that identichip also sell an animal locating service, and they promote it on the back of the certificate. This might partially explain why the guy has been having problems (assuming his chip is done by the same organisation) - he may well have the dog chipped for identification, but doesn't have the locating service?

Oh yeah, they charge an annual fee for the location service too. And lets be honest, when people get their dog chipped they want to be buying the ability to get their animal back if it goes missing, not a simple identification method. No doubt if you get your animal chipped by identichip, but don't pay for the location service, if a vet or charity find your missing dog, ID it, and try to return it to you, identichip will not hand over the data - hiding behind the DPA. If you do pay for the location service, no doubt they still don't hand over the data but contact the registered owner to say vet X has your pet.

WTF is the use of being able to ID an animal, but not be able to get it back? To me, this looks like another fucking business exploiting people by selling a basic service that is useless, and then providing what the customer actually would want as a premium service.

Maybe just putting a dog-tag on the collar, or greyhound style tattoos is a better idea?

Our dog has been re-homed, and so came with the chip pre-installed. In the future, I will be very much thinking twice about getting an animal chipped if it means that I still have to pay an annual fee for location. I don't do business with companies that have bullshit practices.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if it's not your dog, you can just say "Have it transferred to me anyway!" and the original owner can't do anything about it. Sounds great!

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[rjstanford]

Wouldn't the police have to decide it was a criminal matter? If its stolen, then if he filed a police report, wouldn't that be good enough?

Good question. Of course, since he apparently hasn't filed a police report yet, despite the police statement strongly suggesting that if he did so, they'd be able to help him, we may never know.

Sheesh.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that if I report my car stolen via its VIN and someone else tries to register it they are going to get a visit from teh coppers, not a bureaucrat or judge saying "Too bad, we wont tell you"

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[leuk_he]

You are not told in this story WHY the police did not decide that there was no need for action. Maybe the dog was sold, or there was some dispute over the dog. The police is not disclosing this fact and maybe Dave Morehouse prefers it that the police does not reveals the entire story of the police investigation.

The police does have to keep in mind however if they are not doing anything to uphold the law, some frustrated civillion might break the cops their monopoly on violence and take the law into your own hands.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[jours]

In the US at least it wouldn't be a warrant or a police action. You would just file suit against the chip maker, the vet, and the guy who has your dog as John Doe. During discovery the records would be subpoenaed and John Doe would be named in the suit.

It's the same way you go after an unknown person on the Internet. File suit, name the ISP and the anonymous offender, subpoena the offender's name.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[kharchenko]

Identify, as in the dog gave me a strange look today, so I want to make sure noone has swapped it for an evil twin while I was out at work? Get real - the only time you'd need these services is if you lose the dog.

And how come the company is not being named here? The customers should know how helpful they really are in cases like this!

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[L4t3r4lu5]

The dog belongs to the original owner, and if you don't think that's the case, please post your address. I'd like to become the new owner of your TV and computer system. Maybe your car too if I need something to transport my newly acquired goods.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[wvmarle]

It appears the one claiming to be the owner hasn't even reported the dog as stolen to the police.

If a dog has been reported and is registered as stolen, the chip company indeed should inform anyone who tries to register it as theirs that that dog is registered as stolen. However telling them to "call the real owner" (with which I think you mean "the currently registered contact person for this animal") they can not do to the people requesting registration. This after all would mean that the chip company is disclosing personal information.

However what the chip company did very correctly (and which is basically what you are asking for!) is calling the current registered contact person, telling him that they had received a request to update their database, and whether he agreed with that.

So they are not "aiding and abetting theft". They are not even the ones to determine who is the owner. They receive a request to update the contact information, attempt to contact the current registered person, and ask for permission. Which in this case was likely denied.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Chris Burke]

They don't know the location of the dog (the chip is not a GPS device). The only information they have is the contact information for the PERSON who registered the dog, which may not be any indication of the physical location of the dog.

But presuming that the person is still in possession of the dog, then it probably is. And if they aren't, they may know who they sold it to.

"Locating" still has meanings other than "Finding via GPS receiver with wireless broadcast of location to within 3 meters".

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Gordonjcp]

You are not told in this story WHY the police did not decide that there was no need for action/

Maybe because they haven't been told about it? As several other posters have commented, the police say that they will investigate *if* he reports it to them. They're not psychic.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[L4t3r4lu5]

After hearing some dubious non-lawyering on this site, I can probably suggest a course of action.

File a John Doe suit and get the address during discovery?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

Aren't the new owners guilty of receiving stolen property?

not always a crime.

Where the new owners notified? I didn't read that.

You kind of need to prove it as stolen.

He could have decided to get rid of the dog, and then later had remorse, Maybe he didn't secure the leash as well as he thinks and the dog wondered off?

If you find a dog and years later someone claims it was stolen are you obligated to give it beck just based on his word?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

It's the polices job to issue warrants based on just someones word?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[stanlyb]

Don't you have a dog "passport"? Or maybe the given chip, or the contract that you have made with the given chip company should be enough proof that you actually own the dog? Don't you go to a dog-doctor? Don't you have paid some amount of money for this dog (and have some proof for it)? All these papers are a proof that you are more likely to own the dog, than the other "owner" who does not have them. And lets not forget the chip.....

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

It's not a universal problem, it a universal perception. People seem to think that if they have an issue the police should just do what ever they say based on their word.

Yu do not want to live in a world like that.

People also seem to think the police have infinite resources and don't need to prioritize.

The vast majority of police in the US do try and take care of these issues and help. They are bound by rules and regulation and budget just like everyone else.

It also doesn't help that their pay is so low.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

Yes, the police should just take thing from people simply based on someones say so.

I suspect he doesn't need to hire a lawyer to find out the proper course of action.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is technically no such thing as a "small claims court" - there is a County Court (think CCJ's) which have a small claims track for actions under £5000.

Also - if the Small Claims track is used, there is no need to use a solicitor as the whole purpose of the SC track is to make the procedure available to the general pubic at low cost.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is not set in the US, but in the UK. And no that's not a part of the US.

[Citation needed]

Personally, I find that very hard to believe.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[wvmarle]

Part of the reason of required chipping is that if a dog gets lost (they sometimes do get away on their own; probably more common than being stolen) and are caught by the dog catcher as stray, then the government can easier return it to you.

I wonder how that location service works... GPS collar or so?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he could call the cops and ask...

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

ah yes, the liberal judge myth spread by republicans and idiots.

Stop it.

The police can't do anything. Why is that so hard to understand? should I just be able to go to the police and say your dog was owned by me once, therefor go get that dog? of course not.

OTOH, if they had handed over the information, you would be ranting against the legal system for doing just that.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[DinDaddy]

Or maybe they're just nut's.

FTFY

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[uglyduckling]

No, that's not what the article says. He reported the company for not providing the information, and then tried to get police and the courts to compel the company to release the information. What he should do is report the theft and go from there. In fact, he should have reported the theft when the dog first disappeared, in which case he would have a crime reference number, all he would have to do is phone the police and quote the number, and explain that he has new information.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's waste money by making this a court issue. Damn common sense...

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[uglyduckling]

No, the aim of the service is: if your dog gets lost, the animal rescue place that ends up with it can scan for a chip and then contact you. It's not the same as a GPS tracker fitted to a sports car.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

"... This story is not set in the US, but in the UK. And no that's not a part of the US"

But wait ... we beat your ass back in the late 1700's. Doesn't that make you partly a commonwealth of the United States?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the problems is that the dog is considered stolen *property* instead of a family member. It irritates me that someone can steal your pet and just be charged with stolen property instead of kidnapping (petnapping?). Pets mean as much to some people (me, f'rinstance) as a child does to parents. Yet the typical recourse when someone does something terrible to a pet is compensation in the form of the cost of the pet (which is probably zero if it's a stray).

The laws may be changing (I haven't checked) but they're way behind.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

You are incorrect.

They did exactly what they promised, they found the dog and notified the person in their database. THAT is the service they offer.

They handled this exactly as they should.

The person who doesn't have the dog has not bothered to notify the police so they can look into it.

Of course, you start with a strawman. show me where they claim to resolve disputes:

Animalcare.co.uk/identichip

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[MoonBuggy]

Everything you say is true, but perhaps incomplete. The police are there as a public service, after all, and what rubs most people the wrong way is that they won't take the time to help with minor to moderate theft or fraud (cases worth a few hundred to a couple of thousand - dodgy eBay auctions, that kind of thing) but they will use money and resources enforcing seemingly minor traffic offences, drug possession, and the like.

It's a somewhat simplistic view to take, I know, but I think the public at large would be willing to accept that their own relatively minor financial losses aren't worth the time to investigate if the police resources were entirely tied up catching violent criminals. As it is, the (somewhat accurate) perception is that paperwork and easy to reach (but less important) targets take precedence over property crime against individuals.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Maxo-Texas]

And revenue producing activity. Heck, the police can spend all day sitting out with radar guns as the end of the month approaches.

But, the broken window on my car covered with fingerprints they wouldn't take..

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

The telegarph cut the end of the article off.

A West Yorkshire Police spokesman added: ‘If this gentleman wishes to report a theft to us, we will look into the matter. However, we are obviously unable to give members
of the public people’s address details.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314154/Microchip-firm-wont-tell-dog-owner-stolen-pet.html#ixzz10N5W1AWZ

The examiner also has the full article with the same quote. As does many other sources.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me the correct coarse of action is to file a case against John/Jane doe for theft/posession of stolen property (the dog). The subpena the identity of the regisered owners from the chip manufaturer.

In the US that would trivially get you the identity of the people who posess the dog, and in coaurt you could recieve the cash value of the dog as reward for the case (I don't believ you can get the actuall do back as the rulling of a civil case). Alternatively once you have the identity of the defendant and they are notified of the case against them you can likely offer to settle out of court for the retun of the dog and then drop the case.

Of coarse I'm not a lawyer just a guy with a bit of common sence who had a couple family members studying to become lawyers/paralegals at one time so my infomation may be incorrect. Also it's US centric so not nesesarily relevent to the UK.

The horrors of your spelling are so bad, they will make you irrelevant.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[need4mospd]

Identification: "look I have a dog here, please tell me the serial number, and if available the name and other details of this dog". That the chipping company obviously has done. The current owner of the dog went to a vet, had the already present microchip read, and requested they be registered as owner of the dog.

Shouldn't the vet have called the person on the chip to notify them? We've picked up a couple stray dogs with chips in the past and our vet(along with us) made sure to make every effort to reunite the dogs with their owner since they had a chip. If phone calls, visits to the home, and mailed letters go unanswered, we just assume the dog is abandoned.

Anyways, point is, there should be some legal process to follow when dealing with lost pets that have the current owner's identification on them. Apparently people are assholes and would keep a pet even though they know there's probably a kid somewhere bawling his head off thinking about his lost dog getting hit by a car.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[c]

> if I wanted my pet back, I'd report it as
> stolen and get the legal ball rolling.

Not quite that simple. The dogs lead was disconnected and the dog disappeared... that doesn't mean theft, that could also mean the dog opened the lead (not beyond the ability of a bored Jack Russell terrier) and ran off. If the dog got picked up and put into the pound, then a whole set of laws about abandonment and/or strays come into effect and usually after a short waiting period the dog legally becomes county property and can be adopted out. The chain of ownership ends there.

Now, you might argue that the pound would have found the chip and contacted the owner. In practice, finding a chip on a dog can depend on the ability of the person looking. Microchips _move_ within the body, and it's not uncommon for some people to only check the neck and miss a chip which migrated down to the elbow.

In other words, it's not enough for him to just _say_ it's stolen and assume everyone will help. He's probably going to have an uphill battle unless he can convince the police to open a case and treat it as a theft rather than an escape. Even then, if the dog was processed through an animal shelter then the chain of ownership could no longer exist; the new owners would have legal backing.

Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if he hadn't left the dog tied up unattended in his yard...

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Runaway1956]

Wait. Who owns the chip? Who paid for that chip? Apparently, the chip was implanted into the animal so that the chip can be found, and incidentally, the animal with it. Seems a breach of contract if the people who sold the chip and the services to me won't tell me where to find my chip. Sounds like someone was arguing the wrong case here. Time to start all over, and file suit against the chip manufacturer and/or marketer for breach of contract.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[gorzek]

That certainly seems to be the perception, that cops are only interested in either the "low-hanging fruit" busts (speeding tickets, drug possession) or the really high-profile cases (murders, kidnappings, etc.) I had some things stolen out of my house once and had a very strong suspicion as to who did it. I filed a report with the police and even told them who I suspected and why. I was very calm and reasonable about the whole thing, but since the value of my stolen good was only a few hundred bucks they basically filed it away and never touched the case again. I later found out that the person I suspected did have my stolen property, which by that point they had sold to someone else. The cops never even bothered to question the fucker.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

Sadly, the telegraph didn't republish the entire story.

Look at other site with the full story and you will not the the yorkshire police said they would look into it if the man reports stolen property.

He went to the wrong judge, and filed against the wrong group.

The judge has NO AUTHORITY regarding what the man filed.

So the police do NOT HAVE A LEAD to criminals. What they do have is some person going to the press instead of the proper authorities.

When he files a stolen property report with the police, they will look into the matter.

Do you really want someone to make any claim they want and be able to get your person information?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

A regular person would have reported the dog stolen to the police. At the same time, he would have reported also that his dog was chipped and who the locating company would be. When the locator located the dog, the real owner would then report the fact that the locator knows the dog's new location.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

"Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if he hadn't left the dog tied up unattended in his yard..."
that's a poor reason.

"Hey, no one would have thrown a rock through your window if you covered them with 1/2 steal plates."

Don't play the 'blame the victim' game, m'kay?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the [extreme heavy petting] is going on here?

Dog is chipped, man apparently pays money to have dog chipped. Man buys therefore dog and recovery/location service.

Now that the stolen/missing dog has been located, the man cannot get his own property back by use of his purchased chip using the service he has apparently signed up for?

the police know that the dog is his. The police know where it is. The police are too bumfuck lazy to actually do their jobs and pick up the dog for him (surely THAT is within their jurisdiction? Or can I now steal a car and keep it after having it similarly chipped?)

the company hired to chip (so that they can locate) the dog have done so, but won't tell, and the police don't see a problem with this?

That's it. I don't want to live on this planet any more. Where's my rocket ship and an uninhabited moonlet...

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[crossmr]

owner no..but location shouldn't be an issue.
they're giving nothing other than geographic coordinates.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't the police tell him. I mean not as have to, but as an option?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[clone53421]

The person who doesn't have the dog has not bothered to notify the police so they can look into it.

Er... no, actually they went to the police just as they were supposed to and ended up in court where some moron with a robe and gavel basically said “I don’t care, go away”.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[clone53421]

You don’t report a dog as stolen the first day it turns up missing... and how incredibly dense and un-helpful is this system exactly where going to court to have a company disclose the location of your stolen dog isn’t more or less equivalent to reporting the dog as stolen and “going from there”?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[lgw]

There is certainly somehting the police can do: the police handle reports of stolen property all the time (or, at least, when they can be bothered to do their job). Once this guy gets a clue and files a police report, they can investigate, and determine who the real owner is. Since this guy has easy proof the dog is his (the chip), it should end well.

Same situation when your stereo is stolen, and you see in at a pawn shop. If you have some actual proof that it's yours, they police can and should get it back for you.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

if I wanted my pet back, I'd report it as stolen and get the legal ball rolling.

He did, in 2007.

From what I can (quick scan through) tell, he did exactly what he was supposed to. The chip system sort-of worked (i.e. they found the dog and asked the original owner if he would kindly want to update the database with the "new" owners of his already-reported-stolen dog).

understandably, he would prefer to have his stolen property, registered stolen in 2007 to the police and the bumblers running the database, back.

Neither think that a stolen dog is their problem. Isn't apathy wonderful.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[dcw3]

I find it interesting that "police not doing their jobs" is a universal problem. That's something that has always bothered me. Unless it's a violent or significant crime, the police just aren't interested. I guess it's similar in the UK (I'm in the US).

While I'll agree on the general principle, I believe that most police are acting just like you or I would do in most circumstances. We all have tasks that we prioritize, and if I spend my time working on the little ones at work, I'll find myself out of a job very quickly. You don't get any headlines or kudos for rescuing a cat out of a tree, or directing traffic. And with budgets the way they are, it's unlikely that the govt. would hire someone to do that kind of work fulltime, especially for no political or financial gain.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[mattack2]

should I just be able to go to the police and say your dog was owned by me once, therefor go get that dog?

Yes, if the dog is chipped and the registration for the dog chip says you are the owner! That's kind of the point. (I didn't RTFA BTW.)

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[clone53421]

I’m still trying to figure out what the hell the mouth-breathers were thinking. (Okay, not really: they were thinking “go away and leave us alone about your stupid dog, we have ‘real’ work to do”.)

Mr Moorhouse contacted the police who also refused to disclose the information after concluding that there was no criminal case to answer.

Stolen dog. No criminal case. Stolen dog. No criminal case. ... what the fuck?

A judge at Huddersfield County Court ruled that the matter was outside his jurisdiction.

Then whose fucking jurisdiction is it under?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[clone53421]

Right, imma go steal your car and sell it to my brudda, and since my brudda dun ask where I gets me cars he can sells em as he likes and that’s good enough faith to argue circles round the court. An if ye ask me brudda where he gets HIS cars he’ll just tell ye he can’t disclose that information under the Data Protection Act.

...if that’s actually the law where you live, you have some fucked up laws.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[UpnAtom]

Correct, nor did the company find the dog. Instead, the new owners tried to register it.

However the company should have contacted the police, who should have investigated.

The law isn't at fault, the lazy buggers in the company & police are.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[SydShamino]

Small claims court is intended for people without lawyers. However, it does require people smart enough to discover the existence of the small claims court.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[internewt]

I got the wrong end of the stick about the location service. What is offered on the back of our certificate is what they call "locate", but in reality for 17.95UKP for 8 years you get free[1] changes of address on the identichip system, free holiday address recording, a free email reminding you to check your details (FFS!), and a find a vet service (for the terminally stupid who can't even cope with the Yellow Pages).

But have they put this locate service on the back of the certificate so people might think what I did, that the chip alone doesn't mean an effort will be made to return your lost animal?

The identification and location service doesn't do anything as sophisticated as GPS. The chip can report the animal's body temperature though, I think. Better for the dog than sticking a thermometer up its arse!

[1] I fucking hate it when companies call shit free, but is only available if you pay for it. Hardly free! The word to use is "included", not "free". Mobile phone operators are the worst for promoting their services with lavish use of free, but only in exchange for money.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

The managers of the chip company and the chip company themselves will be found guilty of "assisting in the the retention of stolen goods by concealing them." under the the Theft Act 1968 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It does not matter if they disclose the location now before a lawsuit ensues or later as directed to in discovery during a lawsuit. It was done and admitted to it in their own statement.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Algorithmnast]

Good reasoning - until the last (troll) sentence.

But what if the back yard was fenced in? [The article didn't say.] To be more blunt - if it was definitely theft (even if not by the current "owners"), then does your approach change?

Before throwing blame, we have to know more of the story - which wasn't included in the original article.

Which is why I said the police didn't do their job - they should have directed this guy as to how to get the ball rolling so that the courts could determine ownership, and then the whole thing could come to a conclusion.

Instead of being a long-lived internet "discussion".

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[clone53421]

As several other posters have commented, the police say that they will investigate *if* he reports it to them. They're not psychic.

But they knew he was trying to get it back somehow without it being reported to them? Maybe they are psychic.

Or maybe they’re just fucking morons giving him the run-around to avoid having to do their damn jobs. He did report it to them. When he went to the police and told them “somebody has my dog and this company knows who but won’t tell me who or where or help me get it back”, he informed the police of anything and everything that they needed to be informed of.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Kymermosst]

Often it's a matter of budget. In my area it was well known that for a time the county couldn't prosecute relatively* minor crimes due to lack of funding for the DA's office.

At that point the police don't bother to enforce, because they spend their budget processing people who are going to get let go anyway.

(*by "relatively minor", basically property crimes and the so-called victimless crimes)

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see..... When the Corporation won't help you, and the Justice system (law enforcement) won't help you, what is your final recourse?

I doubt creating a media frenzy over this would 'bring out' the guilty party holding the dog, so it looks like this guy is S.O.L.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[clone53421]

Guy goes to police. “My missing dog has been found, this company knows who has it, and they won’t tell me or help me get it back.” “You haven’t told us it was stolen, we can’t help you!”

Is it a fucking magic incantation or something? Does it have to be uttered in those exact words – MY DOG WAS STOLEN? And how about the intonation and emphasis of the syllables? Is it okay if I add “hey you fucking morons, get a clue...” at the beginning?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Surt]

If you want to hire ten or a hundred times as many police, and jump your property taxes by an order of magnitude, start a political campaign to do it. In the mean time, the police will (properly) prioritize violent crimes before non-violent crimes, and large financial crimes before small ones.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Kymermosst]

There's actually a really simple reason for this:

Minor infractions do not require someone from the DA's office to prosecute the case. So the charge will stick and you have to pay or go to court.

Chances are that the police know that the DA will not pursue charges against whoever broke your car window due to lack of budget, because the DA will be prioritizing against cases that involve personal violence, social ills (drugs), or high-level/high-visibility crime. It's not worth the time of the police to do anything more than take a report because they know that the DA will not take the case.

By the way, where do you live that police budgets are still dependent on fine revenue? Some US states have resolved the "quota" issue by having fine revenue go directly to the general fund of the state, not to the local police department which are usually funded by local budgets and non-fine revenue.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Myopic]

My citation for the free-speech claim is the Simon Singh case. This is hardly a controversial issue; Congress passed a protective law to specifically address the lack of free speech in Britain.

I totally agree with you that America also has a long way to go for universal participation in public life, even though we have come a long way already. But that's unrelated to anything I mentioned.

Why would anyone want to have, let alone use, something whose only purpose is to maim and kill, inflict suffering,misery and death?

I'm not clear on the question. Do you mean, "in order to stop someone with a similar weapon from inflicting death upon me"? Because that's what I'm talking about.

Very few people would seriously consider using a gun against a fellow human

Really? You think? I imagine almost everyone would "consider" using a gun against a person who was trying to use a gun or knife or whatever weapon against them. You wouldn't even "consider" acting in self defense? Are you serious or do I misunderstand you?

As quoted elsewhere, this appears to be a case where by the person involved needs to acquaint themselves with the appropriate procedure.

For the sake of the British public, I certainly hope this is true. Nevertheless, it leaves me wondering what the "procedure" is if it's not "call the police and have them recover the stolen goods". What else could the procedure possibly be?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I got my dog chipped it was sold as an Identification chip and that it would be used to locate the dog if it got lost. guess it depends on their sales wording too.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[c]

> that's a poor reason.

That's a perfectly good reason.

He's calling it "theft". But he WASN'T THERE when his dog disappeared. His excuse for calling it theft is that the lead was unclipped. These things open for a lot of reasons. Weak ones can be forced, if it was dirty it might not have closed completely, etc.

He's going to call this in to the police, and the first thing they're going to ask is "are you sure it was stolen", and "dunno, the lead was unclipped" is about as good as "no".

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[clone53421]

“...and as I’m going on break in five minutes I’m not offering to get for him any paperwork for reporting a theft or take down the information”?

It takes all of what, five seconds to say “you’re going about it wrong, you need THIS”, and fifteen minutes to help them along the way of doing it? And that’s sort of their JOB? And these morons apparently won’t do that. What do they think they’re paid to do... drink coffee?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Yes, the police should just take thing from people simply based on someones say so.

Why not? They do it for RIAA when they need your ISP's data so they can send a cease-and-desist letter. So if the police can do it for that case, they ought to be able to do it to find a stolen dog.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thought. I am assuming the new owners of the dog brought it in to be chip, otherwise how would the company know the where abouts of the dog. Assuming this, did the company tell the new owners that the dog was already chip?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Nursie]

"I don't want to live on this planet any more. Where's my rocket ship and an uninhabited moonlet..."

I wish I didn't get that feeling so damned much these days!

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[julesh]

Why wasn't this treated as a criminal (or even civil property) matter? Aren't the new owners guilty of receiving stolen property? I mean, even if they didn't know it before (assuming they bought the dog from the thief and didn't realize it was stolen), they obviously do now.

Under UK law property can't be confiscated from its new owners unless they had reason to believe it was stolen at the time they acquired it. The article says the police investigated and concluded there wasn't a criminal matter, so presumably they felt they had no reason to believe the dog was stolen.

And even if the dog wasn't stolen, it's still the original owner's property, no?

No. The aphorism "posession is nine tenths of the law" holds true: somebody who has done no wrong and is in posession of property that they had a right to believe was theirs is the owner.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[julesh]

How on earth would a regular person have any idea how to do all that crap?

The free advisor at his local citizens advice bureau should be able to tell him this.

He shouldn't need to hire a lawyer to tell him how to get his stolen dog back.

Everything required should be possible without a lawyer, unless the dog is worth more than £5,000 which would put it outside of small claims court channels.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[mwvdlee]

If the police have time to catch me speeding, they have time to figure out who threw a bearbottle through the rear window of my car.
Yet I get a few speeding tickets each year but they never even bothered to look at my car in person.
That is my perception, and my perception sees a problem with that.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes you require information about your location... Interesting.

Where am I? You are right here.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Beezlebub33]

Then you're an idiot. A person != a pet. I know that this is difficult for people who don't have children to understand, PETA definitely doesn't understand, but there is a difference between humans and dogs / cats. And I say this as a parent and a pet owner (of both a cat and a dog).

I know that you are attached to your pet, and I'm emotionally attached to my pets, but they are property. They can be bought and sold. They can be used for food and clothing. The laws are right to separate the way they are considered from humans. Injuring a pet, or killing it, is a criminal offense, either cruelty or deprivation of property. It's not murder, kidnapping, or torture.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if you had a child, and I kidnapped said child and you received a call saying they have located your child via GPS from the child's cell phone, you wouldn't want them to reveal the child's location? I know a child is hardly the same as a dog, but in either case, a crime has been committed here.....

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[inerlogic]

if their pay is low, they're welcome to find another, higher paying job....
the problem is, the bottom of the barrel scumbags that end up in uniform aren't smart enough to do any other job which would garner them a higher paycheck.

a low paying job YOU CHOSE for yourself is not an excuse to not perform your job competently.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[inerlogic]

police don't issue warrants, judges do...
cops act on warrants

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Adustust]

I would agree with you that this is a possibility, however, I thought the point of an identification chip was to identify where the dog should really be. If the new owners intended to return the dog, I have a hard time believing that the company would have decided against disclosing the information.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Scarred Intellect]

Except he doesn't need the location of the people. He needs the location of his dog. That's not even a subtle difference, but it is important.

That's what the chip's for: to provide the location of the dog. Not to provide the location of the people who are currently in possession of said dog. It's not the chip company's fault if those people happen to be where the dog currently is.

After RTFA, Mr. Moorhouse requested the address of the people, not the dog. So this issue never would have been brought up if he hadn't been stupid; this shouldn't be newsworthy.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[c6gunner]

Shh! You're not supposed to let facts get in the way of a good cop-bashing!

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Zan Lynx]

Yet, if you go over to the thief's house with a baseball bat and friends, beat the snot out of him and take your stuff back, the cops will be all over you.

How fair is that?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Yakasha]

There is certainly somehting the police can do: the police handle reports of stolen property all the time (or, at least, when they can be bothered to do their job). Once this guy gets a clue and files a police report, they can investigate, and determine who the real owner is. Since this guy has easy proof the dog is his (the chip), it should end well.

Same situation when your stereo is stolen, and you see in at a pawn shop. If you have some actual proof that it's yours, they police can and should get it back for you.

The difference being in this case, he saw somebody purchase his radio and asked the store clerk "Hey, who was that? Where does he live?"

And the store owner said he couldn't tell him.

So the guy went to the police and said "Hey, the store clerk won't tell me where to find the guy that stole my radio."

And the police said... "Ok. That is their right. If your radio was stolen, file a police report and we'll investigate."

And the guys said... "nah, I'm going to the press!"

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[c6gunner]

If the police have time to catch me speeding, they have time to figure out who threw a bearbottle through the rear window of my car.

Bullshit. Investigating your case could take days or weeks, and the prosecuter would probably turn it down even if they managed to grab the right person. Meanwhile, in the same time period, they can issue a few hundred tickets. It's not even in the same ballpark.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BitterOak]

Locating: "my dog is lost; this was its serial number, please tell me where it is and who claims to be its current owner". That the company is not allowed to disclose without court order.

There are two very different pieces of information there. "where it is" (i.e. the missing dog) and "who claims to be the current owner." (if indeed anyone does.) It may well make sense that the latter piece of information should be protected unless demanded by a court order, but not the former. For all we know, the dog could have gone stray and is living in a city park.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BitterOak]

Although the situation is a bit odd, I approve of a law which requires court action before any who isn't me can be provided my location.

Your location, yes. But I think the owner is trying to ascertain the location of a dog. Should dogs really have all the same privacy rights as people?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[randizzle3000]

Yea you're right. It's also possible that the company might have wanted the "new" owners to jump through some hoops (maybe they had to allow that company to disclose their info to the "old" owner) and they figured it's not worth it, we'll just keep the dog." Either way, it seems as if "new" owners didn't try more than a minimum amount (if at all) to return the dog. Like Adustust said, dick move.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[camperdave]

That's what the chip's for: to provide the location of the dog.

Actually, no. The chip is to identify the dog's owner, the status of whatever shots the dog has had, its breed, etc. It has nothing to do with the dog's location.

This is the baffling part for me. If the chip says that the dog belongs to Mr X, how is Mr Y being allowed to maintain possession of it?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

You area habitual lawbreaker, they are simply going after Career criminals like you.

How about you stop being an asshole and do the speed limit?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Lumpy]

Part of the reason of required chipping is that if a dog gets lost (they sometimes do get away on their own; probably more common than being stolen) and are caught by the dog catcher as stray, then the government can easier FINE you.

I fixed that for you.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Urkki]

I find it interesting that "people not doing their jobs" is a universal problem. That's something that has always bothered me. Unless it's somehow significant in the context of other things, people just aren't interested. I guess it's similar in extraterrestrial alien cultures, if there are any.

FTFY ;-)

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Mister Whirly]

That's no uninhabited moonlet...

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because the RIAA is suing the supposed filesharer, not the ISP. Hence, the filesharer(if guilty) has damaged the copyright of the RIAA. In this case, the chip company did not steal the dog so they have no liability. Judges usually dismiss cases where the defendant has no liability.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Sentrion]

At least they took your report. I had a handyman rip me off for a $1k deposit, then I found out he had ripped off dozens (maybe hundreds?) of other people. He does really good work for 3-4 people every six months to use them as shining references then screws everybody after that.

Contractors aren't licensed in Texas so there wasn't much of any other way to find out the guy was a crook. HOWEVER, the police refused to take my report because the guy technically STARTED the job (just a few minutes of actual work). In spite of the dozens of other victims and similar criminal cases that have ended in conviction, the police refused my report, insisting that it was only a civil matter.

The guy has already been sued but if you don't want to pay a judgment there are dozens of techniques to just keep dodging any collection attempts.

Fact is, reporting crime is bad for the department and bad for the city elected officials. To get re-elected you have to show that crime is going down, so there is a disincentive to taking reports if you can avoid it. I'm just glad I wasn't raped and have to argue to the cops the meaning of "no".

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen a case where stolen property was found and the cops just let the holders keep it.

In the US, my area anyway, if the thieves sell the stolen property to a pawn shop, and the cops accidentally find it 6 months later, the victim is allowed to buy the property back from the pawn shop at the price the shop paid to the thieves (no receiving stolen goods here, but they're reimbursed for their fuckup), and apparently isn't obligated to give up the seller's information.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Gilmoure]

One night, someone(s) went down our street, smashing a window on every car and taking whatever, for 3 blocks. Police just took a report.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what's wrong with Justice System today. I don't need a degree in Criminal Justice, or a stack of studies to tell you with confidence that minor crime always leads to major crime. That stopping some punk who breaks a car window today, may prevent a murder 5 or 10 years from now. At least someone is starting to get it on the other side of the Atlantic, with UK trying to police anti social behavior. Though they too are facing budget crisis.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Man On Pink Corner]

If you want to hire ten or a hundred times as many police, and jump your property taxes by an order of magnitude, start a political campaign to do it. In the mean time, the police will (properly) prioritize violent crimes before non-violent crimes

Pull the other one. It has a bell attached!

You'd have a point if "prioritizing violent crimes" included camping out behind an overpass with a radar gun and a box of donuts, watching a meaningless yet profitable number on a speed display while meth-addled truckers are shoving people off the road.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Maxo-Texas]

Yes and no.

We did have a big fix when they said that any state highway fines have to go to the state and the localities do not get to keep the ticket fees.

Outside of that, ticket income is fungible and on the budget.

Given the pattern of police taking tickets (I know which days I can speed by 20 mph (heck I break 80 some days and have people passing me) and which days there will be a cop after every hump. Seriously- around the end of the month, there are 5 cops on each side over 8 miles of freeway. Early in the month, no cops or one cop in the shade under the big overpass (all the regulars speed to that point, slow down, pass him watch the ignorant get stopped and then speed back up).

The freeway is a dream and could easily handle 80mhp in daytime dry conditions.

Ticket revenue is collected and goes into some bucket- when state and city budgets started getting tight back in 2008, we got red light cameras and aggressive ticketing.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because we all know you think the government is evil and always out to get you. We get it - you are a paranoid moron.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[pedrop357]

When can we count on that? The whole point being made by many here is that the police focus on victimless non-violent crimes and revenue generating crimes at the expense of minor crimes with actual victims.

They ignore breakins, minor theft, etc. but not a guy smoking a joint in his backyard or a person doing 5 over the limit.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[jminne]

When my bicycle got stolen from my apartment courtyard in NYC I was impressed by the detective work. The surveillance camera got a fuzzy picture of the culprit and I knew the name of someone he spoke to. The police found the home of the person named, determined who the friend was, found him and arrested him. I didn't get my bike back, but hey having the guy in jail for a while is at least a deterrent.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Sentrion]

This story is not set in the US, but in the UK. And no that's not a part of the US.

OK, then answer me this: How many UK military bases are located on mainland USA? How many US military bases are located on the British Isles?

Now, I'll ask again, who own's who now?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[biryokumaru]

The free advisor at his local citizens advice bureau should be able to tell him this.

I feel this still falls under: How on earth would a regular person have any idea how to do all that crap?

Look, if you never go to court, you have no idea how that stuff works. It's totally unfair that law abiding citizens should be at a disadvantage when it comes to the legal system.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Flea of Pain]

Also the bear may come looking for this bottle and that could just get messy.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[sjames]

Some states have, but in many places it's not JUST the police but the entire town that is dependent on police fines to stay afloat. Even where the fines go to the general budget, it isn't all that hard to set up a "gentleman's agreement" in a small town to make sure the police get an unofficial commission on their tickets. As long as taxes stay low and police focus on out of towners, the locals are unlikely to get too upset by it.

That's not to say that DAs out for political gain rather than justice aren't also a part of the problem.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

The new owners likely have no idea that the dog was stolen, and handling the situation through the courts is much less likely to explode than allowing the company to hand out home addresses to aggrieved parties.

well said.

i would have thought there was some basic arbitration service the chipping co could provide or in worst case an approach by a pcso to the currrent dog holders to void wasting the courts time on an issue that may well be resolved amicably if there was but the oportunity to do so.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[uglyduckling]

It's not dense at all. He's tried to have the court compel a company to release information for a supposedly stolen dog that he apparently hasn't reported as stolen. And it's been two years since the dog went missing, so something isn't right here. People do need to take a little bit of personal responsibility for things rather than assuming there are lesions of people just sitting waiting to take up their cause.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[clone53421]

He went to the police. Presumably this is what one is supposed to do when reporting a stolen dog, no? The police basically blew him off.

The company was absolutely correct in telling him they couldn’t just disclose the information he wanted, but other than that I can’t find fault with his strategy... going to the police / courts was exactly right.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[martin-boundary]

That's what people used to say about slaves. Slaves aren't real people, they're just property. If you kill or maim them, it's not really a problem, just vandalism.

Social standards evolve, and the laws are the last to follow. You're on the losing side of this issue.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the UK, but in .nl if you buy an item from a regular store without it obviously being stolen property, it becomes yours to keep, even if the original owners show up......

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[hitmark]

As ol' Einstein said, everything is relative to the position of the observer.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[initialE]

Would you rather that violent and significant crimes went up in order for police to spend 90% of their time on the former? Because that's a description of New York before the turn of the millenium.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[John Meacham]

I feel this still falls under: How on earth would a regular person have any idea how to do all that crap?

I don't think this is unfair against law abiding citizens, it is simply unfair to people unwilling to do the slight amount of research and mild effort required to find the answer to their question. Like one phone call to the court, or a google search. I think you will find that people unwilling to do that are at a disadvantage in many areas of life, legal or otherwise.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BitZtream]

Good for the company for standing thier ground ... really ... now explain to me WHY THE FUCK I would use their service when they've shown publicly they'll do the wrong thing and not help to get the dog returned.

You chip your animal to get it returned, thats the selling point of their service, and they aren't willing to make an effort to provide the service or they aren't 'allowed' to provide the service the customer paid for.

Why would any intelligent pay for a service that could not possibly help them do to some other retarded law being used in the wrong way?

All this does is shows that its stupid to chip your dog in the UK. Good job guys, you're idiots.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BitZtream]

I'm sure he can get advice from either the judge who rejected

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, no he can't get advice from the judge, its illegal. Its an indication of bias. Some break the rule and do it anyway because most of the time its just the right thing to do, but legally, they aren't supposed to give you any advice what so ever when they preside over your case.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BitZtream]

But its a direct and unquestionable indication of someone in possession of property which is not theirs. I won't call it stolen because apparently he hasn't reported it as such.

Where I live, you're still guilty of committing the crime even if you didn't know. If you are truly an innocent offender, no one will do anything to you. Eitherway, this a retarded fucking discussion and they should just give the guy his damn dog back.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BitZtream]

Mr Moorhouse contacted the police who also refused to disclose the information after concluding that there was no criminal case to answer.

Yea, it is wonderful.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BitZtream]

From the linked article at telegraph which you apparently ignored:

Mr Moorhouse contacted the police who also refused to disclose the information after concluding that there was no criminal case to answer.

He reported it and they said 'fuck you, we're eating donuts.'

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BitZtream]

Every shelter in existence has the rfid readers to know that a dog has been chipped, it costs them WAY less money to return it than to adopt it out, so it didn't go to the pound.

Microchips _move_ within the body, and it's not uncommon for some people to only check the neck and miss a chip which migrated down to the elbow.

I'm pretty sure you would have failed anatomy in vet school. The chips are put in behind the neck and there is no possible way for it to migrate to the elbow, it just doesn't work that way.

Second, on a dog that size, you could pretty much hold the scanner anywhere near the dog and wave it slightly and end up detecting the chip.

Please don't talk about animals like you have a clue, you sound like some retarded vet tech or vet tech assistant who doesn't have any idea what you're talking about.

Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if he hadn't left the dog tied up unattended in his yard...

You're an idiot.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BitZtream]

It switched to stolen the INSTANT they scanned the dogs chip and the new owners didn't offer to return it.

It doesn't matter if the lead was unclipped, its STILL HIS PROPERTY.

You can leave your car unlocked with the keys in it, and if someone takes it, its still theft.

He knows its in someone else's possession. The chip company knows its in someone else's possession. There are records showing he was the registered owner (THE WHOLE POINT TO CHIPPING). He DID call the police and report it, and they said they were busy eating donuts. I guess reading the actual article was too hard? Were the words too big or something?

You can make retarded statements like its his fault, but pretty much no matter how you look at it, the police and the company doing the chips have not handled this properly and it needs to be made far more public just to point out how much of a waste of time it is apparently to chip your dog.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Eivind]

To be fair though, it's a lot less work to catch you speeding. I don't know precise numbers, but even a moderate guess says an hour of work with a radar, is sufficient to catch several speeders.

How much work is it realistically to talk to you, and investigate the bearbottle-throwing, finding out who did it and get him convicted ?

I don't know the answer to that either, but it seems reasonable to expect that it'd be several hours work at a minimum, and unless you had -very- good information, it'd be several hours work for possibly naught.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Gordonjcp]

If he did report it to them, why doesn't he have a crime number? That's all he'd need to get the information.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[clone53421]

why doesn't he have a crime number? That's all he'd need to get the information.

Because when he tried to report it to the police they told him that “there was no criminal case to answer”, maybe?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Gordonjcp]

Well, that's what *he* says. The police say he hasn't reported it at all. Both the articles say he reported it to the vet that chipped the dog, but don't say that he reported it to the police.

Someone is not telling the whole story.

The police saying that there's "no criminal case to answer" doesn't sound right at all. At a bare minimum they would log the report and close it off as "Advice Given" so they could record a detection.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[wvmarle]

Shouldn't the vet have called the person on the chip to notify them?

Yes I think the vet should - if the vet would have access to the personal data related to this chip.

IMHO this access to personal data shouldn't go further than "hey chipper co, I got dog with ID 1337 here, a Mr Leet claims to own that dog, is that correct?" upon which chipper co says "no we have a totally different name here! We'll notify the person registered with us.", or "yes, information matches our registration".

Yes that's a quite strict implementation of privacy. But it seems under the mentioned UK law it should be done like that.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[c]

> But what if the back yard was fenced in? [The article didn't say.]

It doesn't mean the dog didn't escape. Many dogs can, for example, climb chainlink fence without trouble. I've watched my little terrier mix fly out of a 48" tall exercise pen. A sufficiently bored or motivated dog can get out of damn near any enclosure you'll find on the average home.

> To be more blunt - if it was definitely theft (even if not by the
> current "owners"), then does your approach change?

Not really. The problem isn't that it was stolen or escaped, the problem is that he doesn't really know, didn't know at the time, and is going to have some difficulty convincing others that he does know. If he SAW someone stealing his dog, he might have gotten a bit more interest from the police, assuming he'd called them immediately (didn't read like her did). As it is, the conversation with the police would bog down pretty well at the "how do you know it was stolen" question.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[c]

> I'm pretty sure you would have failed anatomy in vet school.

I'm pretty sure you didn't take the two seconds necessary to Google "microchip migration". They move within the body. They also can get damaged or they can be outright defective. I'd hope that the UK has at least has settled on one type of chip and reader, but at least here in north america we do have a situation where some readers have trouble getting the codes from some brands of chips, if they can detect them at all. Microchips are great, but you're a fool if you lose your dog and you assume you'll get it back because it was chipped.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[c]

> You can leave your car unlocked with the keys
> in it, and if someone takes it, its still theft.

You can leave your can unlocked with the keys in it, and if someone takes it, abandons it, it gets ticketed, then towed, impounded, and after the legal wait period for you to reclaim it, then it gets auctioned off as abandoned property... it's still theft, sure, but you're not getting it back; the person who buys it at the auction has legal title.

Property law in the real world is a bit more complicated than "it was mine, you have it, I want it, you have to give it back".

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[kinnell]

Why wasn't this treated as a criminal (or even civil property) matter? Aren't the new owners guilty of receiving stolen property? I mean, even if they didn't know it before (assuming they bought the dog from the thief and didn't realize it was stolen), they obviously do now. I've never seen a case where stolen property was found and the cops just let the holders keep it. Maybe fences should start chipping *all* their stolen goods before reselling them ("All these items chipped for your protection. Safe as buying from a reputable store!").

And even if the dog wasn't stolen, it's still the original owner's property, no? Did the UK abolish property rights for pets or something?

I'm not sure about the law in England, but under Scottish law, as long as the new owners were unaware that the dog was stolen they would legally own it and be innocent of purchasing stolen property. The former owner would have to sue the thief for damages in order to be compensated.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[BlackBloq]

That is completely untrue. Cops also do their job if a family member is at risk. That includes other cops. Also for any elected politician or official.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also an apparent conflict in the UK between the data protection law and the trade laws that require a product or service to behave as advertised. If the chip company is advertising that their service can help you find your pet if it is lost or stolen, but fail to mention that you need a court order to actually get that information, that sounds like fair game for a lawsuit.

But that's a whole separate issue from the lawsuit needed to actually get the dog back, which (caveat IANAL) would be a John Doe type suit where he files a subpoena discovery motion against the chip company.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[VoiceOfDoom]

Er... no, actually they went to the police just as they were supposed to and ended up in court where some moron with a robe and gavel basically said "I don't care, go away".

Judges in the UK don't use gavels.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[seekertom]

I don't understand why everyone is talking about the new 'owners'. Has anyone 'proven' ownership of the dog, either the first guy or the second? Even in the most jaded locations, if I tell a cop someone stole my property, and I prove it is my property and tell him the name of someone who knows where it is, I'm pretty sure the cop will at least go to the 'end user' and demand proof of ownership. Biggest problem here is we wee folks never get all the right details of a situation, just enough of the inflammatory ones to piss everyone off.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so confused. If I had my dog chipped, then he was stolen or ran away and someone else found the dog, took him to a vet and they scanned the chip.....why does the chip company not contact me at that time and tell me someone found my dog. Why is this random person who now has the dog, why are they allowed to remove me as the owner and list themselves?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you live?? Most police do not give out tickets to speeders, but rather a municipal violation that is payable to the municipality and not the state. That way they get all the money and you do not get the hit on your insurance. A win - win.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[anton_kg]

It's time to go to a nearest supermarket and do some "shopping". Most expensive goods are chipped and a shop won't be able to get it back due to DMA!

So having your pet chipped is pointless then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't they shooting themselves in the foot? Why get your pet chipped if it doesn't help you get your pet back?

Re:So having your pet chipped is pointless then?

[Drakkenmensch]

But then the RFID makers don't get paid good money for providing a service that cannot be enforced because of laws that prevent them from having any use!

Re:So having your pet chipped is pointless then?

[Anonymous Coward]

It can still be helpful for the case where your pet is found by someone who is willing to return it to you.

Re:So having your pet chipped is pointless then?

[Anonymous Coward]

No! That's the wrong way to look at it, my friend. By giving the pet chip company your hard earned money you create jobs and in the process supply our economy with the means to keep from crashing us all into the depths of a greed-fueled depression so horrifying in its black vasty-depth that civilization would never exit again. So go out and chip your pet, you'll be glad you did, even if little Rex gets stolen and you have no way to recover him.

And remember:
TURN IN ALL DATA-SHARERS!

Re:So having your pet chipped is pointless then?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the person is willing to work with you, your dog recognizing, responding to its name, and coming to you expressing happiness to see you, will be evidence enough.

Re:So having your pet chipped is pointless then?

[91degrees]

Actually it does. As other people have mentioned in other comments, the article is slightly sensationalist. He hasn't reported his dog stolen. Should he do so then it's quite possible that one of the many exceptions to the data protection act will be valid.

So he can get his dog back. He just has to do it legitimately. What's he going to do if he gets the address anyway? Break in and steal it back? This really isn't the sort of behaviour we should encourage if there's a reasonable alternative.

Re:So having your pet chipped is pointless then?

[nomadic]

Because if you need to track down your pet there is a much higher chance that it is lost rather than stolen? And that chipping helps in that case?

Re:So having your pet chipped is pointless then?

[Anonymous Coward]

In some places it's illegal not to. Like here in Australia (giving the UK a run for its money as the Nanny state capital of the world).

Good intentions or not, it has rather predictably been abused by local councils who have implemented deliberately confusing rules for dogs in beaches and public parks, with ridiculous (read profitable) fines for breaking them (fines around $1000 aren't uncommon).

The rules change from beach to beach (where only the locals are able to keep track of things), and it's usually something like:

"Dogs are allowed on-leash Monday through Thursday, off-leash after 6 pm, but not between October and April, when it's on-leash after 6 pm and banned before 6 pm; between May and September, dogs are allowed on-leash before 8 am if the date is divisible by a prime, 7 am otherwise."

Incredibly frustrating for those who clean up after their dogs and try to exercise them regularly - i.e. responsible dog owners.

Frustrating

[Pojut]

I work in a pharmaceutical call center (I'm no longer on phones, since I now work in a technical position...but I started with answering phones.) People would get EXTREMELY frustrated with certain HIPAA regulations that would prevent us from providing them information regarding a family member because they hadn't been set as an "official contact".

HIPAA laws are well-intentioned, but often get in the way of patients (or their family members) getting the information they need. This malarky regarding the Data Protection Act and the guy's own dog seems to be a similar unfortunate situation.

Re:Frustrating

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when somebody doesn't want their family members learning about their medical history; then the HIPAA stuff can be quite helpful.

Re:Frustrating

[Improv]

Sometimes that well-intentioned-ness is really good. For example, I have not spoken with my father for over five years and would not want him to be treated any differently than some random person off the street in getting information or visiting should I ever become seriously ill. The doctors should not need to hear me explain that, and I would be livid if they used their "good judgement" to override the rules.

I don't care if my father (or anyone else) isn't getting information they think they "need". They can go stuff it.

Re:Frustrating

[iamhassi]

"HIPAA laws are well-intentioned, but often get in the way of patients (or their family members) getting the information they need. This malarky regarding the Data Protection Act and the guy's own dog seems to be a similar unfortunate situation."

THIS IS NOT HIPAA!

Sorry but HIPAA is a Very Good Thing and completely different from this. I don't work in a call center but I know far too much about HIPAA and it's basically the only thing that protects someone from giving out all your medical history.

Before HIPAA came out in 1996 (yes, that recently) anyone could call your doctor or hospital and ask for your information and if the wrong person answered the phone they might give that information out. What medications your on, what surgeries you've had, what diseases you have or had. Even Captain Obvious can clearly see no one would want this information given to anyone that bothers to make a phone call so Thank God congress finally did one thing right and enacted HIPAA.

Who has your dog is another matter, however the Data Protection Act only applies to UK. This is a UK law, we're still safe in the US.

Re:Frustrating

[butlerm]

I hesitate to say that is one of the most poorly thought out arguments I have seen on Slashdot for quite some time. The all caps / all bold shouting doesn't exactly advance your case either.

Re:Frustrating

[Anonymous Coward]

Gerbil got stuck, eh?

Re:Frustrating

[Pojut]

True! That's why I didn't say they always got in the way:-) Chances are, it's a case of "the complainers are the loudest", but I've seen first-hand plenty of instances where I can't release information to someone due to regulations, even though they really need to know what's going on.

Please also note that the specific example I referred to in my OP wasn't an estranged family member, but a family member who was asked by the patient to get information yet wasn't listed as an "official" contact. A few days later, they called with the patient also on the line, and the patient confirmed they were authorized...but they were still pissed that they lost a few days on it.

Re:Frustrating

[tophermeyer]

Please also note that the specific example I referred to in my OP wasn't an estranged family member, but a family member who was asked by the patient to get information yet wasn't listed as an "official" contact. A few days later, they called with the patient also on the line, and the patient confirmed they were authorized...but they were still pissed that they lost a few days on it.

I saw similar situations in my time answering phones. It sucks, the human in me wanted to be able to bend the rules to help, but there was always a rational part of me that understood that the laws exist for a reason and I have no way of knowing if the "desperate family member" was giving me the whole story. That is one of the many reasons I am glad not to be in a direct people facing role anymore; it saves me stressing the moral ambiguity.

At the very least those experiences have made me think very hard about who I would want to be able to access my medical information and make decisions about my care if I was unable to do so.

Re:Frustrating

[dsoltesz]

Gossipy, nosy, lecturing family members... I don't even want them knowing my latest blood pressure reading. All I need is my mother saying "Should you be putting butter on your potato? Your cholesterol levels are a bit high." And. Yeah. I don't want her to know about the damned gerbil.

Re:Frustrating

[Archangel Michael]

Laws always code for the exceptions and never for the rules, instead of coding for the rule, and checking for exceptions.

Re:Frustrating

[stimpleton]

Your post is funny, and generally you are right, but, for example, my mother developed bowel cancer. She was 75, and not good at aggressively persuing things. In the first year (Yes that long to get the initital diagnosis), I did need to know things to try to get her back to the GP, or the right specialist. At the time GP's would only take local bookings, they were snowed under. To coordinate this I needed to know if she had to come in for more tests, or as I suspected, was scared and was not wanting to go in and was claming up after getting results. Had she had the tests and was all clear? I'll leave it there, but it didnt have a happy ending.

Britain....you're hosed

[Anonymous Coward]

That's spectacularly foolish.

dog gone it

[digitalsushi]

That's one dog gone sad story.

Re:dog gone it

[Anonymous Coward]

wow straight to -1 dude, an editor didnt catch that joke huh

I don't see the problem

[JohnFluxx]

The new owners probably don't know it's been stolen, and for all anyone knows, maybe he just gave them the dog and is now using this to track them? Not that crazy if you consider it might be his ex-wife or similar.

Instead, he just has to file a lawsuit and get the courts to agree to it. Or get the police to recover the dog.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Grimbleton]

You didn't read the article. He already tried both of those.

Re:I don't see the problem

[JohnFluxx]

Kinda. The report is a bit light on details, but it sounds like he tried to get the police and court to force Animalcare to reveal the details. But Animalcare had not done anything wrong, hence their refusal.

It doesn't sound like he tried to get the police or courts to just get his dog back instead.

Company may be perfectly right

[AbbeyRoad]

The company is perfectly right. The judge only refused because the guy asked the wrong judge. This is explained in the article.

The company also is being entirely cooperative and "would encourage Mr Moorhouse to go to a solicitor and start a civil case".

Through a civil case he would be able to get a court order. I don't even think he would need a lawyer for this.

This law is in line with good civil rights: it's the same law that prevents Google from disclosing info about your searches.

Re:Company may be perfectly right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I agree, also the company is generally not in a position to verify that the person requesting the information is who he says he is, and that the situation is how he claims that it is, etc. E.g. it could be a low-life ex-boyfriend just looking for the person who owns the dog, or any number of bizarre circumstances. Certainly not claiming any shananigans in this particular case, but sound policy has to account for all scenarios.

Re:Company may be perfectly right

[Anonymous Coward]

Small claims court would do, no solicitor or lawyer required.

"An unknown person has taken possession of my property. Company X have the details but can't release them to me"

Court will summon Company X as a witness, who will then surrender the details to the court (and from the sound of things, they want to do this for him). It'll cost him a little in filing fees, but not a lot.

Re:Company may be perfectly right

[Anonymous Coward]

> Through a civil case he would be able to get a court order. I don't even think he would need a lawyer for this.

You don't /need/ a lawyer, but you do need to be careful to make /exactly/ the right request. There are specific circumstances under which such an order can be issued, and it cannot be issued if the court has any reason to believe that you might actually want that information for other purposes. If you look at the guidance for using the small claims court, it will give you the precise wording to use. If you deviate even slightly from that, it can easily result in the request being refused.

Re:Company may be perfectly right

[initialE]

The company is right, the company is cooperative, and they have done nothing to deserve ridicule. This being said, they have also proved themselves to be irrelevant - there is no reason to get your dog chipped for identifying purposes.

File criminal charges that the dog is stolen

[Skapare]

... then get the info. Since those in possession of the dog are now aware the dog belongs to someone else, not handing the dog over to authorities means they are now keeping someone else's property. Hence, it is now theft.

Re:File criminal charges that the dog is stolen

[Anonymous Coward]

If you Read the comments above or TFA, it would say that he did try. Police refused to disclose info after concluding it was not a criminal case. The judge refused saying it was out of his jurisdiction.

Re:File criminal charges that the dog is stolen

[RobinEggs]

They're only aware of a prior owner having registered the dog, and not necessarily of the fact that he was stolen. It's entirely possible and not improbable that they bought the dog from the thief, eventually decided they wanted him chipped, and view the whole matter as simply a need to update some records to reflect what they consider a legal change of ownership.

Nothing says or implies the new owners actually know he was stolen, and the company has probably declined to tell the new owners anything more than they've told Mr. Moorhouse, if the new owners even got enough information to become suspicious of any problems.

Re:File criminal charges that the dog is stolen

[Anonymous Coward]

He did this. And the cops didnt want to be bothered with it. Everyone keeps telling him to get a lawyer to take care of the mess?!

I can see chipping your animal is useless in the UK...

That company couldnt have asked for WORSE advertisement of failure of product.

Re:File criminal charges that the dog is stolen

[BitZtream]

From TFA:

Mr Moorhouse contacted the police who also refused to disclose the information after concluding that there was no criminal case to answer.

So ... he tried, they told him to fuck off... NOW WHAT?

How exactly

[Crudely_Indecent]

did the dog get chipped in the first place?

I had my dog chipped, by a vet, after filling out paperwork authorizing it (and a check paying for it). If the paperwork is in the original owners name, how do the new owners have authority? How does the chip company even know about the new owners?

It makes me wonder if I got ripped off for the chip I paid for.

From the TFA, the original owner was asked by the chip company if they could update their records with the new owner information and the original owner refused. The police say their isn't a case and won't do anything further.

Someone please explain this...

[Last_Available_Usern]

Steven Wildridge, managing director of Animalcare, the company that runs Anibase, said, "This is a common problem that can occur if a dog is involved in a marital dispute or it is lost or stolen."

Are those not the precise circumstances you'd hope to remedy by procuring the chip to begin with? I understand it may not be legal for them to randomly hand over information provided to them, but there should be no issue with them handing the information over to authorities and allowing them to determine the dog's ownership. If the current "owner" can't prove a consentual transaction took place than the dog goes back to the original owner. Someone has to have jurisdiction to remedy these type of cases.

Re:Someone please explain this...

[YrWrstNtmr]

From animalcare's website:
"Locate offers assistance to the owner when a pet goes missing as well as other database benefits"

Apparently, they don't offer that much assistance.

american law

[Odinlake]

What does this mean exactly? He must start a legal process in order to get the name of the people who now have the dog. Suppose he just got their names anyway, what is he supposed to do? Grab his shotgun, walz over there and demand the dog back? I don't know anything about American law but surely there'd have to be a legal process involved either way, so what's the big deal about having to start it before finding out the names?

Re:american law

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anything about American law but surely there'd have to be a legal process involved either way, so what's the big deal about having to start it before finding out the names?

Doesn't matter since this took place in the UK.

Re:american law

[clone53421]

He must start a legal process in order to get the name of the people who now have the dog.

How exactly does one do that?

He went to the police and they told him “don’t bother us – your stolen dog is not a criminal case”.

He went to the court with jurisdiction in his region and they told him “don’t bother us – not our jurisdiction”.

Sounds to me like everyone whose responsibility it is has claimed that the responsibility theirs isn’t.

Glad I don't live in England...

[Fallen Kell]

At least here in the USA if you have proof that the dog was lost/stolen (as in newpaper articles, or an original police report), you get your dog back if you have proof it is your dog (like a microchip implant). There are no questions asked, you get the dog (or you can do whatever you want, like officially give the dog to the current owners or sell him to them).

Re:Glad I don't live in England...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, a SWAT team would descend upon the thieve's home, shooting the stolen dog in the process.

Re:Glad I don't live in England...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think the dog's behavior would be proof of ownership. Tell the cops the dog's name, and all identifying marks and behaviors, and when that dog responds to you calling him by name it's proof you're telling them the truth when the identifying marks and behaviors are seen.... The dog knows who it's owner is, and if the owner has treated that dog right, that dog will provide all proof needed to show ownership.

Re:Glad I don't live in England...

[Paracelcus]

Back in 1965 I caught a man trying to undo my dog's chain from a parking meter, i quietly walked up behind him and used my razor sharp Parker pocketknife across his back, I wonder if he still remembers how he got that scar? He took off like a scalded cat! (I still was close to my redneck roots at the time ;-)...

They're still catching up in the UK

[damn_registrars]

Some jurisdictions in the US have essentially legalized auto theft - provided you happen to be an impound company. Years ago a company impounded my car from my contracted parking space and the police refused to get involved. Basically, if you're dealing with a for-profit (or "not-for-profit" - whatever the hell that actually means) company, your chance of getting the government or law enforcement to help you is almost zero.

Re:They're still catching up in the UK

[jimicus]

They do exactly the same thing in the UK - we have a legal framework which companies towing vehicles are supposed to follow, but it's frequently abused and generally misunderstood by the police.

Put it this way, it's quite common to find your vehicle's been taken illegally, and the police response is almost invariably "that's a civil matter, Sir". 9 times out of 10, you either need to get an injunction against the company that towed away your car to return it or you pay to retrieve it and then sue them for the money. (They seldom honour court judgements and never have any assets for a bailiff to take, so you usually have to include the person who instructed them as well).

Most people know nothing about the legal framework bit and probably pay up with little fuss, so in essence it is exactly the same thing.

Re:They're still catching up in the UK

[damn_registrars]

They seldom honour court judgements

I've seen that before. The towing companies do flat-out ignore court judgments, or just keep appealing them until the plaintiff runs out of money to continue with proceedings (or if they are really lucky until they find a judge who buys their pile of lies).

so you usually have to include the person who instructed them as well

I figured life would be more civilized across the pond (it generally is). Here we allow the towing companies to patrol lots on their own; they basically don't need anyone to instruct them to do anything in some cases. Then since there is no witness to the impound, it becomes he-said, he-said and the judge will almost invariably favor the towing company (if the plaintiff gets that far).

Most people know nothing about the legal framework bit and probably pay up with little fuss, so in essence it is exactly the same thing.

And as the towing companies take advantage of the public ignorance, they can operate in blatant violation whenever they want to increase revenue.

Re:They're still catching up in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure I've met some people at my local Humane Society who have "legally" stolen dogs in a similar way, and they are usually deluded enough that they don't think they are in the wrong.

Example. A woman sees a super cute dog outside in its owner's yard while the owner is not home. Though it has food, water, toys, and a doghouse, is friendly, trained, and looks well taken care of, it is all alone, and it might rain for a few minutes today, so it is obviously neglected. The woman "rescues" the dog and takes it the animal shelter where she happens to be a volunteer. She reports the dog as "lost" when she brings it to the shelter, and they make a cursory attempt to advertise the "found" dog in a completely different part of town from where she actually "rescued" it, and then the woman adopts it two weeks later. Neither she nor her friends at the animal shelter feel any remorse, because the rules just HAD to be bent to keep the dog from going back to that terrible place where they just KNOW it wasn't treated right.

It think it is something about the good work they do with actually abused pets that makes them see neglect where there is none. Any dog that is not pampered to the same extent as their own is "neglected."

I don't think this kind of thing is even uncommon.

Re:They're still catching up in the UK

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Although there's a bill in the pipeline to abolish the bastards entirely, and it can't come soon enough. That's the one class of people whose being thrown, destitute, out on to the street I have no sympathy for.

so just take your car back from the impound don't

[Joe The Dragon]

so just take your car back from the impound don't pay or pay and change back.

File a stolen property report.

[RichMan]

File a stolen property case against John Doe and request the release of the data.
The case can be made for the dogs value to be over $200. If it is a rare breed then $500 for sure.

Make it criminal and not civil and watch the people with the dog return it as quick as possible. I doubt anyone wants criminal charges over a dog.

Re:File a stolen property report.

[jimicus]

This is the UK, not the US.

While it's possible to mount a criminal prosecution privately, it's very expensive and quite difficult. The police have already washed their hands of the matter, claiming it's a civil dispute. (Myself I don't see how - the dog was reported stolen some time ago, he's since found evidence to suggest it's still alive and in the possession of someone else, but AFAICT "It's a civil dispute" is often used as code to mean "We the police don't want to get involved").

Re:File a stolen property report.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Any UK lawyers know if there's a way to FORCE the police to get involved?

Don't need the address

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you give me the latitude and longitude of my dog please ?
Thanks.

Easy Fix

[bigrockpeltr]

Dont ask for the location of the new owner's address... just ask for the location of HIS dog. ( GPS coordinates could work too.) Either way common sense clearly rules this should be a non issue. He should probably sue the data company for accessory to theft or something like that.


This is like if i install a security/tracking app (like SmartGuart) on MY phone, it gets stolen/lost, then the app company wont tell me where the phone is.

Re:Easy Fix

[singingjim1]

This sounds like something from the Idiocracy movie. So...I put Lojack in my car. Car is stolen and sold to someone on the street within minutes. Cops find stolen car in possession of new "owner". Lojack can't tell you where your car is now because of Data Protection Act?? Um, no. Not in the US. Like a previous poster already pointed out - BUYING STOLEN PROPERTY IS IN AND OF ITSELF A CRIME WHETHER OR NOT IT IS DONE KNOWINGLY.

Re:Easy Fix

[Antisyzygy]

Its not a crime to buy stolen property if you literally had no knowledge it was stolen. If someone were to buy something from a nefarious person, you could make a case they probably knew it "could" be stolen. However, if you buy a tool set from your neighbor you have known for 15 years and it turns out its stolen how the hell should that be illegal? That would be ridiculous. The worst case scenario would be stolen property is returned to the original owner.

Re:Easy Fix

[singingjim1]

Receiving Stolen Goods: The offense of acquiring goods with the knowledge that they have been stolen, extorted, embezzled, or unlawfully taken in any manner. Now, the "knowledge" that they have been stolen is the sticking point. It's quite possible that the new "owners" of the dog had no actual knowledge that they were receiving stolen property, but that would have to be determined by law enforcement and subsequently the court if law enforcement was convinced that the new owners could have reasonably suspected that the dog was stolen. Either way, the property should be able to be recovered and returned to the original owner, which I have a feeling is what will be the ultimate outcome of this case.

Re:Easy Fix

[Man Eating Duck]

However, if you buy a tool set from your neighbor you have known for 15 years and it turns out its stolen how the hell should that be illegal? That would be ridiculous.

In Norway it is, I just checked our criminal law. The term translates to something like "negligent possession of stolen goods". It's your responsibility to ask for the original receipt in order to verify that the property you're buying is *not* stolen, otherwise you're negligent and could be sentenced to a fine or jail.

It makes some sense in that it disables real criminals to claim negligence when caught possessing stolen goods, while cases like the one you describe are extremely rare. The real reason is probably that stolen goods is common on internet auction sites, if a deal seems too good to be true it often is. Honest Norwegians have also learned to be *very* careful when buying used bicycles, as theft of bicycles is rampant.

If you bought those tools from your neighbour which turned out to be stolen the court might decide that *he* probably bought them in a suspect manner, if he didn't steal them himself. If you had no reason at all to be suspicious, and could prove it, I would think that you'd be acquitted. Even the courts can use common sense. In the real world this excuse is far more commonly employed by people who are guilty as hell, to make it simple the law just declares it illegal to be involved with stolen property no matter what.

Re:Easy Fix

[Unkyjar]

The chip they are referring to is not a GPS, it's a digital dog tag. When scanned by a wand the chip gives you health and home information on the dog.

Re:Easy Fix

[clone53421]

Whether or not it is illegal (which it is) seems to be confusing you with respects to the action taken to penalise (or more likely not) the person, which will generally be limited to taking away the property and returning it to its owner.

Just because it’s illegal to buy stolen goods doesn’t mean that everyone has to be morons about how that is enforced and penalised. Sure if you knowingly did it that’s worse and punished accordingly... if you unknowingly did it you probably just have to give it back and lost whatever you paid for it.

Re:Easy Fix

[clone53421]

Then there’s also possession of stolen goods, which is also illegal and begins the instant you find out the goods had been stolen.

The remedy, of course, is to give them up and let them be given back to their rightful owner.

A New Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

With this kind of logic being bandied about by the courts it seems like I should just chip everything I steal before selling it.

queer brit courts

[scharkalvin]

I guess things are handled differently in the UK. In the US it's illegal to buy stolen property, and if you do you are subject to having it confiscated from you (at the least). The police should have demanded the information (geting a court order if necessary) and then retrived the stolen property as 'evidence'. The original owner (after submitting proof that the stolen property is really his) should then have been able to get his dog back. In this case he would not only have needed to have had his dog 'chipped' (which might have been proof enough that it was his dog if he had written proof of the chip's ID) but maybe also had a copy of his dog's DNA.

Moral of the story...

[Assmasher]

...always get a Power of Attorney from your dog.

Pikeys

[toxonix]

That is why you never ever buy a dog from a pikey.

Re:Pikeys

[RatherBeAnonymous]

No, that's why you never buy a caravan from a pikey. The dog was thrown in for free.

Re:Pikeys

[clone53421]

Actually sounds to me like you can buy it from just about whoever. You don’t even have to give it back if it’s stolen.

He's Going After the Wrong People Here

[Plekto]

The proper response should have been, and still is, to obtain the information from the company concerning where the pet was sold/make a case over that. Business information isn't the same as personal data, especially when it is backed by a request from the courts. Obtaining such a request against the company who re-sold his property illegally is a 20-minute deal in court.

And then go after the pet store or whomever re-sold the pet to the new owners without checking for a microchip first.(or ignoring it) Get *them* to contact the owners and notify them of the mistake or sue them to get a replacement dog.

The Pet ID company can't do anything and yes, he went after the wrong people here.

Moral of this story - always follow the money and always attack where it changes hands.

Every day...

[dragonhunter21]

Every day, there seems to be at least one article on /. that makes me shake my head and go "What the hell?"

Re:Every day...

[ebrandsberg]

I posted a scenario that should make you understand why the law is as it is. Think abusive husbands.

Title Threw Me for a Loop

[adeft]

I read this tentatively thinking the animal itself had gone through a wood chipper.

Re:Title Threw Me for a Loop

[northernfrights]

Boy, you must have been disappointed...

Re:so just take your car back from the impound don

[damn_registrars]

so just take your car back from the impound don't pay

That isn't an option since the private impound companies hold your car as hostage inside a locked facility; you can't get it until you pay them for it. Often they won't even allow you to see your car until you pay them - and of course usually they make you sign a form where you release them of any and all liability for damage done in order to get your car back from them.

fraud..

[MaerD]

Why not pursue the mircochip company for fraud? They obviously sold him a set of services they did not have the ability to legally provide..

actually even violent and significiant...

[Anonymous Coward]

crimes are often ignored. basically the police are not here for 'our' benefit. yeah if i was walking down the road with a joint they might commit hundreds of dollars of resources instantly to holding and processing the 'crime' and bring me in and out of court multiple times eventually ruining any chance of teaching mathematics even though im in debt to the state for $100k to get a phd in physics/math with an impeccable academic record. it took a couple of real experiences to realise this simple truth, the police are not here for 'our' benefit. perhaps if i was a celebrity or business owner, ceo or other vip. but no.

another example is harrasment or abuse from other people. if the police could take proactive action in these cases alot of crime which is people taking things into their own hands to enact revenge or settle abuse could be averted early on and there would be an even more important impact on the lives and earning potential of the victims. for another example take false allegations/corruption by police, legal aid(s) doesnt want to know and doesnt care. it is standard practice for the police to make a bunch of shit up and not play by the rules just to rub it in your face how corrupt they are and try and force you to bet against yourself, conceeding one thing in the mistaken belief that the court will see the truth and even listen to you let alone be lucky enough to have a magistrate that can A) read, B) have any memory C) read the previous assertions of previous magistrates who have made 'deals' in previous times the case has been set down. for example a deal to have no charge recorded if certain actions were undertaken and then later forget about all that completely. i realise that lawyers intentionally obfuscate everything to the max to make it difficult for magistrates and judges to read all the verbage presented to them, but this is why the laws should be formalised and there should be very clear semantic statements of everything that can be asserted and assessed upon, to the degree that we do not need a magistrate or simply that the magistrate should check the formal calculations of a computer program that based on formal logic determines the outcome in any given situation and can include assertions from all parties, so that if a given police prosecutor has a streak of being accused of fabricating entire statements and general corruption, they can be excluded from duties and imho should simply be fired. if a police member cannot communicate with the public they should not be police, or guards or jail guards or hold any position of 'authority' ('''s because i think authority should be reserved for those that create or an author, and these so called 'authorities' have not created anything, and dont count on them reading the mass of verbage when youve been waiting months with your whole life on hold for a few minutes of their time and they dont bother reading the statement in front of them or those made by the previous magistrates who agreed to the previous adjournment. /rant
  and good luck getting the thousands needed for a half hour appearance from a good solicitor or barrister, if you were in that social class where you had that money free to spend on legal expenses then you might not be suffering or vulnerable to the kinds of things that police should be helping us with. imho it all went down hill when the general population turned against many authorities and the police with the complete failure that is the 'war on some drugs'.

Re:actually even violent and significiant...

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked your point of view and would like to subscribe to your publication - my bank details are 4958674645456 and pin is 4355.

Re:actually even violent and significiant...

[gknoy]

Have you considered buying a keyboard with a working shift key? Capitalization would make your prose much easier to read.

Re:actually even violent and significiant...

[JonahsDad]

Oh sure, now his next post will be in ALL CAPS.

Re:actually even violent and significiant...

[Guru2Newbie]

Perhaps he may be related to e.e. cummings?

US/UK

[xigxag]

Where I live in the US

1) The police would typically not investigate an alleged crime like this - there are simply too many cases of petit larceny for them to go after every one with detectives.
2) Filing a police report does not constitute proof of a crime -- anybody can file a lost property report and claim that my property is theirs. Maybe they sold me an animal and then feel remorse and want it back. Maybe my ex-wife wants back the mangy cur dog she surrendered in the divorce decree, or she just wants to keep track of my whereabouts. Without laws like the DPA, it'd be pretty easy to buy your bf a chipped dog when times are good and then use it to track him down when he leaves you.
3) The remedy for something like this is to start a civil proceeding to compel the company to provide the location information, much in the same way that the RIAA sues to get names and IP addresses. Remember the old principle: "Possession is 9/10ths of the law." The current custodians of the dog should be considered not guilty/liable for anything until a theft or illegal conversion has been proven to have occurred in court. And the fact that the dog is still alive after so many years speaks against any exigent circumstances compelling emergency relief, in other words, there's no rush.

Reading the article, it appears that things work approximately the same way in the UK
So this is basically a non-story that relies on Joe Bloggs' ignorance of legal workings.

I agree with you.

[maillemaker]

I chipped my dogs so that if they got lost or stolen I could find them again.

What this article tells me is that, as you note, it's worthless.

What else will they not divulge that is chipped?

[sglafata]

Imagine if you will that you chip your kid, and they will not divulge their whereabouts because they ran away and do not want to be contacted by you!

Chips do not provide location.

[maillemaker]

The chips don't provide location.

The chip can only be detected and read by a wand that passes in close proximity of the chip.

Most likely the dog ended up with new owners, who took the dog to a vet who scanned for the chip, and reported the finding to the chip company.

Be best the chip company could tell you is the last place the chip was scanned.

Re:Chips do not provide location.

[clone53421]

Right, so the entry should be marked STOLEN in their database so that when a vet calls it up because the stolen dog is in his office at that moment and he’ll know to keep the dog there and who cares about the location of the guy who brought it in?

Due Process

[wsanders]

I dunno about your country, but we've streamlined all that stuff in the US. Here, you whine about your legal problem on TV, some special-interest lawyer takes your case on contigency, the TV news and Slashdot ridicule the police, courts, and lawyers, and then you get your dog back.

Re:Due Process

[gandhi_2]

As an American who has never actually been to the UK, I was just hoping i got some of the terminology right.

US courts never pass up a good lawsuit.

Re:Due Process

[Mister Whirly]

And they rarely pass on the bad lawsuits either.

I'd hate to be the new owners of that dog

[LordNimon]

Sooner or later, the original owner is going to find out who has his dog, and then the press are going to find out, and the new "owners" are going to find their names and faces on the front page of some rag, vilified by the community. This will happen even if the new owners have no idea what's going on.

Re:I'd hate to be the new owners of that dog

[clone53421]

This will happen even if the new owners have no idea what's going on.

Right, because when they took their new dog to the vet, had it checked, oh hey this dog is chipped, can we get the address changed over to ours please? ... and all the while they were blissfully unaware of the fact that someone, somewhere, owned the dog before they did and had it chipped in the first place.

That’s actually rather easy to imagine, but the fact that nobody had the intelligence to tell them “hey, this dog was reported lost or stolen” (and/or just keep the dog and not give it back to them) is ridiculous.

The virtues of the original article

[fiestyquaker]

The original article also includes a statement by the chip manufacturer that they suggested Mr. Moorhouse go to a solicitor and start a civil case. He may not like that suggestion, but he can't say they were completely unhelpful.

Uh, yes it is.

[ClioCJS]

Yes it is. As much as we would all love to have power over the world, we can't just declare laws and have that be the laws that are. You're wrong, you're making shit up, and it's an embarassment and disservice to the slashdot readers. Look it up.

Re:Uh, yes it is.

[Antisyzygy]

Dude, reasonable courts would throw out a case if a person literally did not know they had "received stolen property". The law was not meant to screw people who unknowingly buy stolen items. The court system does not exist to smack down everyone with every illegal thing they have ever done otherwise we would all be in jail or fined up the ass. Every single person in the US has committed a crime in the misdemeanor category at one time or another. If you say you have not then you are simply a liar. The whole point in having judges and juries is to inject some logic and circumstance into a criminal case. The fact that you even responded that way to me suggests that not only are you an arrogant prick, but you also are an ignoramus. Laws are created EXACTLY like you said they are not. A group of people arbitrarily "declared" laws and then they were the laws that are. Go try to grow a brain stem.

Re:Uh, yes it is.

[Antisyzygy]

Accept : The reason the 18 year old was arrested is because the Police had reason to believe he stole the property.

Reality : The stolen goods were unknowingly sold. The police had a reason to believe the person stole the goods themselves and were attempting to sell them.

Douchebag : See REALITY.

You're an arrogant, uncivilized bully that has to resort to an equivalent of "Yahoo answers" as evidence to back yourself up. The only disservice to / . is your presence.

Keyword : It is illegal to Knowingly purchase stolen property.

Quod

Erat

Demonstrandum

Seems to me...

[forkfail]

... that anyone who would try to have the data records associated with the dog updated without attempting to contact the owner of record doesn't deserve to have a dog.

Oblig. car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stolen Pet goes to vet for checkup, gets it's RFID scanned into database, and people know where my stolen pet is but I can't get it back

So lets say cars have an identifiable number that gets recorded when maintenance is performed. (VIN anyone?) Stolen car gets taken in for an oil change, my car is located but I can't get my car back.

Dog does not want to be found?

[PietjeJantje]

The data protection act, who is it protecting? The chip shows the location of the dog, right? Not of the people or house around him. Why didn't they just provide coordinates for the dog? If it is the dog's private data, does the dog not wish to be found? Now they seem to have gathered the coordinates of the dog, went to the coordinates and witnessed people hanging around the dog which are not its owners, and is protecting the data privacy of these irrelevant persons. This is a very important point. The guy bought a chip providing coordinates for the dog, not for random objects or persons around him at the time of polling. If you go that way, all such microchips are rendered useless, because objects and domesticated animals tend to be near to people.

Re:Dog does not want to be found?

[digitig]

As far as I can see, it is protecting the new possessors of the dog who are the ones that had it chipped and so are the ones with a contract with the chipping company.

Re:What else will they not divulge that is chipped

[asdf7890]

Imagine if you will that you chip your kid, and they will not divulge their whereabouts because they ran away and do not want to be contacted by you!

Depending on why the kid ran away this might be a perfectly valid situation. Imagine you had a chip in you, ran away from an abusive family, and the chip company just handed over your location against your wishes (or the wishes of your new legal guardian).

That isn't relevant anyway. As many people have said already they are *not* refusing to tell him where the dog is (they don't know) they are refusing to tell him where the people who have re-registered (or have tried to re-register) the dog's ownership. They are not even refusing because of their own policy, they are refusing because it would not be legal for them to act on the request. If they gave him what he asked for they would be breaking the law and that law, while far from perfect, exists for good reason. The DPA does have provisions allowing it to be bypassed in situations like this, but he has to follow the correct procedure which unfortunately involves officially reporting the dog as stolen property.

Having scanned the article it would appear that he has officially reported the dog stolen, but the police have decided (wrongly in my opinion, though I am not in full possession of all the facts at this point) there isn't a case to answer so he will have to persue other legal avenues if he want to proceed. Yes this is bad, but it does not mean that the DPA is bad or that, as your post seems to be suggesting, the company is bad for obeying said law. Perhaps the police are wrong in their interpretaion and there is a case to answer (my opinion is leaning that way) but there is nothing the company can do about that - the (original) owner will need to consult a qualified legal adviser at this point to find out what he an do to proceed.

I *totally* read the headline incorrectly

[chmod755]

Am I the only one, or did anybody else read that headline and wonder why someone would want returned to them a dog that went through a wood chipper? (Waiting for the ASPCA to call...)

solution for someone stealing your dog is a GUN!

[Anonymous Coward]

he should hunt down the f'ers who have his dog, and, at the very least, beat the living shit out of them. That will teach them to f with the man's dog.

If the pigs won't help him find them, pursue calmly through suit against the rfid tag registry, then when you have the information... revenge time!

steal a persons dog... that is like stealing a child.

Re:What else will they not divulge that is chipped

[clone53421]

Right. The company is perfectly in line – they have their own ass to protect, after all – and there’s an unbelievable level of all-around (company, police, court) stupidity and density in not helping the guy take the right method of getting the information and/or his dog back.

How the hell is HE supposed to know the proper legal procedure to go through? They’re the fucking experts... they should be telling him.

Dont chip or get chipped

[Anonymous Coward]

Another good argument to stay away from chipping to begin off with.

For anybody who thinks this is unreasonable...

[ebrandsberg]

Scenario:

Abusive husband and his wife split up, and she goes into hiding fearing retaliation against he and their kids. She goes into hiding for fear of her life, but she left the dog because she didn't have much time. Later she goes back and gets the dog when he wasn't home, since he was in the habit of kicking the dog too, and the kids missed him. Fast forward three years. Her new husband is at the vet with the dog, who scans it, and finds it was chipped. The husband, not thinking about what had happened in the past asks for the address to be updated. Old husband is still furious at his old wife, and wants to extract revenge, so he requests the information so he can find out where she lives. He knows he can't go through the normal process, as the dog was equally the wife's dog, so he tries to bully the chip company.

Now, put in this context, if the chip company had released the information, and the guy kills his ex-wife, her new husband, the two kids, AND the dog, everybody would be on the chip companies ass for releasing private information.

The law IS correct here--he needs to go through the legal process to have information released to him.

Re:For anybody who thinks this is unreasonable...

[ErikZ]

The law is correct in your example, only if you think security through obscurity is correct.

Re:For anybody who thinks this is unreasonable...

[ebrandsberg]

I'm not seeing your point. The wife could have legally changed her name, and otherwise insured that she can't be found through normal methods. The only linkage would be the dog, and where the husband made the mistake, the law is the only thing preventing the information from leaking. Security through obscurity often relies on people not looking behind the scenes to see what is going on, and taking the time to piece things together. That isn't what is presented in the scenario.

Re:For anybody who thinks this is unreasonable...

[Ambient Sheep]

Beautifully put. I was thinking along the same lines myself, only without the domestic abuse bit (although that's quite plausible, of course), and was going to post similarly.

For me, the key phrase in the article is the quote from the chip-company guy: "This is a common problem that can occur if a dog is involved in a marital dispute or it is lost or stolen. We encourage people to sort things out amongst themselves but if they refuse there is not much we can do." Note how early on in that sentence the words "involved in a marital dispute" are mentioned. First, basically. I suspect this was intended as a hint to us all.

And then he goes onto say about people sorting things out "amongst themselves", which would be implausible if you didn't actually know the thief, wouldn't it? You only sort things out in that manner if you know the other party. All in all, I think it's a very cleverly-worded press statement.

It would certainly explain why the police "also refused to disclose the information after concluding that there was no criminal case to answer", and why the chip-firm is recommending that he go the civil route -- if the dog was jointly owned by both himself and his ex-wife before they split up, then it's not going to be a criminal theft, is it?

Surprised that nobody else here but you spotted this one. Shame you've not been modded up for it (if I'd had points today, I'd have done so instead of posting).

Last I heard...

[DarthVain]

The Lat and Long of a piece of your property isn't protected by data or privacy laws period.

Just because that might be smack dab in the middle of some idiot's living room who stole your dog, doesn't mean squat.

I asked for the coordinates, not your attitude. Chop chop.

Re:Last I heard...

[VJ42]

The Lat and Long of a piece of your property isn't protected by data or privacy laws period.

Just because that might be smack dab in the middle of some idiot's living room who stole your dog, doesn't mean squat.

I asked for the coordinates, not your attitude. Chop chop.

The Chip isn't some sort of GPS device - the company only knows the name & address of the new owners, not the precise location of the dog.

Then why get one at all?!

[hesaigo999ca]

What is the point of these chips if as soon as someone steals your dog, and declare it their own, you are now without means to locate your dog.
Seriously, I hope they throw the book at this company.... HARD!!!

low-hanging fruit busts

[zooblethorpe]

Well, that's different -- what are you putting in your bra? Most girls just use tissue paper...

Cheers,

Re:low-hanging fruit busts

[gorzek]

I think you're making a joke that was inadequately set up. :-p

Re:low-hanging fruit busts

[sabt-pestnu]

Should have used Jello-brand gelatin! Sets in only a short time, especially when placed in a refrigerator.

Re:low-hanging fruit busts

[gorzek]

Too much jiggle!

DRM?

[DarthVain]

Dog Rights Management anyone? eh?

ducks. quack.

Um, no.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Dave Moorhouse was elated when he was informed that a microchip provider had information on the whereabouts of his stolen dog. This joy soon faded when the company informed him that it could not divulge the Jack Russell terrier's location because it would breach the Data Protection Act. Last week a court agreed with the chip company and refused Mr Moorhouse's request for a court order compelling them to reveal the name and address of the new owners. Steven Wildridge, managing director of the chip company said: "This is not a choice, it's an obligation under the Data Protection Act. If the individuals involved do not want us to pass on their details to the original owner then we cannot do so unless compelled to following a criminal or civil proceeding."

Am I missing something? If the dog is stolen, the "original" owner is the owner, and the "new" owners are the thieves. So why would a court reject granting this because it's a crime?

I'd ask for my money back on the chip then

[lastrogue]

If they wont tell you where your dog is, then what good is a chip? sounds almost like a scam.

How is this not a crime?

[thetoadwarrior]

They stole the dog and the police don't think it's a crime and what a scam if you're expected to pay for a chip in your pet and it's no better than taping a sign that says "please don't steal me" on your dog's ass? Those chips are pretty expensive and to find out it's a complete waste of money means they should be illegal because it's a scam.

long. latitude

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't they just give up the longitude and lat of the middle of the street where the dog is thought to be? this way they're not giving anyone elses info out. he can go knock on each door around himself and see if he hears/sees it. then call the police accordingly. problem solved?

obligatory car analogy

[Rudisaurus]

I've found your stolen car, which I know was yours because I read the VIN -- but I can't tell you where it is because that would breach the privacy of the new owners.

R-i-i-i-g-h-t.

Not going to read article... but

[EricX2]

I'm imaging the point of the dog implant is as such:

Dog gets lost
Dog gets found
Dog is scanned for an ID chip
IF chip is found, return to owner on file
ELSE dog is made available to new owner

Why was this not dog not checked for implant or why weren't the owners notified prior to it being given to somebody new?

hang on a sec

[cavebison]

What about the poor puppy in all this?

If I saw a puppy tied up by his lead in a backyard while the owner is out all day, I'd be calling the RSPCA to get it taken off him.

That's no way to treat a pet. The pup may very well be better off where it is and everyone knows it.

Re:What else will they not divulge that is chipped

[VJ42]

They’re the fucking experts... they should be telling him.

They have; from TFA:

[the company] would encourage Mr Moorhouse to go to a solicitor and start a civil case.

for what purpose is the chip used?

[allo]

i always thought you chip a pet, because you want to find it again. but now this is forbidden ... and what is left as purpose for the chip?

Sinister agenda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical.
Government and large corporations get to mis-use personal data for everything and the small man-on-the-street get a rap on the fingers.
Maybe the hope is that the man-on-the-street feels like the 'data protection act' is a bit too strict and they can lessen it's 'stifle' even more?

Law Enforcement exemption

[Martin Spamer]

Something doesn't ring true about this article. The Data Protection Act contain the following exemption.

Law Enforcement
Personal data held for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, apprehending or prosecuting offenders,...

The exemption is not restricted to bodies such as the police or Inland Revenue. So, information about suspected fraud held by a bank or a social security officer could also be covered.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-right-to-know/data-protection-act/data-protection-act-exemptions.html

Re:What else will they not divulge that is chipped

[clone53421]

The company does have its hands tied... it seems to me that the police and/or courts ought to be much more helpful than they are seeming to be, though.