UK Man Prevented From Finding Chipped Pet Under Data Protection Act

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Man Prevented From Finding Chipped Pet Under Data Protection Act

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday September 23, 2010 @01:50AM from the clause-22 dept.

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."

61 of 340 comments (clear)

So they can just keep stolen property then? by elrous0 · 2010-09-23 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by EndlessNameless · 2010-09-23 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  ---
  According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
2. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by characterZer0 · 2010-09-23 01:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
3. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by operagost · 2010-09-23 02:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
4. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by omnichad · 2010-09-23 02:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
5. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by omnichad · 2010-09-23 02:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
6. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Algorithmnast · 2010-09-23 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
7. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by yivi · 2010-09-23 02:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It would be so wonderful if there was a way to find out what really happened...
  Alas, we have to live in ignorance.
8. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by wvmarle · 2010-09-23 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by mea37 · 2010-09-23 02:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
10. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Minwee · 2010-09-23 02:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-23 02:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
12. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Algorithmnast · 2010-09-23 02:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
13. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by v1 · 2010-09-23 02:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
14. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Adustust · 2010-09-23 02:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
15. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by bsDaemon · 2010-09-23 02:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
16. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by elrous0 · 2010-09-23 02:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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."
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
17. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by b0bby · 2010-09-23 02:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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?
18. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by debrain · 2010-09-23 02:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
19. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by gandhi_2 · 2010-09-23 02:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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....
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
20. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by wvmarle · 2010-09-23 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
21. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by erikvcl · 2010-09-23 02:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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).
22. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by bws111 · 2010-09-23 03:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
23. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by biryokumaru · 2010-09-23 03:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
24. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by twistedsymphony · 2010-09-23 03:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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
25. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by bws111 · 2010-09-23 03:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
26. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by BasilBrush · 2010-09-23 03:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
27. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by randizzle3000 · 2010-09-23 03:25 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  42 - the number of forms a man must fill out to retrieve his stolen dog.
28. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by randizzle3000 · 2010-09-23 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?
29. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-09-23 03:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
30. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by bws111 · 2010-09-23 03:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.’"
31. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by MozeeToby · 2010-09-23 03:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
32. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by rjstanford · 2010-09-23 04:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
33. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by jours · 2010-09-23 04:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  This sig intentionally left blank.
34. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-09-23 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
35. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by geekoid · 2010-09-23 04:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
36. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by DinDaddy · 2010-09-23 04:27 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Or maybe they're just nut's.
  FTFY
37. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Maxo-Texas · 2010-09-23 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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..
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
38. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by lgw · 2010-09-23 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
39. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Kymermosst · 2010-09-23 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
40. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by mwvdlee · 2010-09-23 06:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
41. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by inerlogic · 2010-09-23 06:58 · Score: 2
  
  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.
42. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by c6gunner · 2010-09-23 07:12 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Shh! You're not supposed to let facts get in the way of a good cop-bashing!
43. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Yakasha · 2010-09-23 07:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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!"
44. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Urkki · 2010-09-23 08:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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 ;-)
45. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by pedrop357 · 2010-09-23 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
So having your pet chipped is pointless then? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-23 01:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Aren't they shooting themselves in the foot? Why get your pet chipped if it doesn't help you get your pet back?
Frustrating by Pojut · 2010-09-23 01:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Living With a Nerd
1. Re:Frustrating by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-23 02:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Except when somebody doesn't want their family members learning about their medical history; then the HIPAA stuff can be quite helpful.
2. Re:Frustrating by Improv · 2010-09-23 02:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
3. Re:Frustrating by dsoltesz · 2010-09-23 02:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
dog gone it by digitalsushi · 2010-09-23 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's one dog gone sad story.

--
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Company may be perfectly right by AbbeyRoad · 2010-09-23 02:05 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
File criminal charges that the dog is stolen by Skapare · 2010-09-23 02:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

... 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
How exactly by Crudely_Indecent · 2010-09-23 02:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--

"Lame" - Galaxar
Easy Fix by bigrockpeltr · 2010-09-23 02:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

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
Moral of the story... by Assmasher · 2010-09-23 02:55 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Loading...
Title Threw Me for a Loop by adeft · 2010-09-23 03:13 · Score: 2, Funny

I read this tentatively thinking the animal itself had gone through a wood chipper.
1. Re:Title Threw Me for a Loop by northernfrights · 2010-09-23 08:37 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Boy, you must have been disappointed...
Re:actually even violent and significiant... by gknoy · 2010-09-23 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Have you considered buying a keyboard with a working shift key? Capitalization would make your prose much easier to read.
Re:Due Process by Mister+Whirly · 2010-09-23 08:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

And they rarely pass on the bad lawsuits either.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"