Slashdot Mirror
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."
... 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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
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.
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.
$ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
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).
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.
Collector's Edition
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'.