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."
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?