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."
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.