Feeds

Daily Mail savages Data Protection Act over stolen dog

Maybe a bit of sense would have helped?

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

The Daily Mail is laying into the Data Protection Act again, this time accusing the legislation of keeping a stolen dog from its rightful owner.

Dave Moorhouse claims his dog, which had been implanted with an identity chip, was stolen in 2007, but that he recently received a letter from Animal Care (which manages the pooch ID database) asking him to confirm a change of ownership. He asked the company to tell him who requested the change, and Animal Care suggested he contact the police. This he did, and Animal Care was pleased to tell West Yorkshire's finest who currently has possession of the disputed dog.

But that's just the facts, not much of a story there one might think.

"A man who had his dog microchipped before it was stolen cannot be told where the animal now lives because of data protection laws" the Mail thundered. It went on to explain that "Rocky" a "gorgeous, lovely dog who would lick you to death" was chipped as a puppy, but was allegedly stolen in 2007.

In April Moorhouse got a letter from Animal Care asking him to confirm a change of ownership: "I asked them for the name and address of the people who had my dog but they wouldn’t give me the details," he explained.

The Mail traced the problem to the Data Protection Act and its draconian restrictions on companies sharing data with theft victims who fancy dropping round to have a word with the accused thieves.

Despite not originally reporting the alleged crime to the police, Moorhouse has reportedly spent "nearly £400 on legal fees and phone calls trying to find out where Rocky is."

Which is a shame when all he actually needed to do was report the theft. After some prompting from Animal Care he spoke to the police, at which point the police made an official request and were provided with the information. It's now up to the law to decide who owns Rocky and where he should be living.

Obviously the needs of vigilante justice in such situations would have been better served by passing on the details, in breach of the Act, so that people can go round personally and reclaim their property - and what could possibly go wrong in that scenario? ®

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

More from The Register

next story
BIG FAT Lies: Porky Pies about obesity
What really shortens lives? Reading this sort of crap in the papers
Be real, Apple: In-app goodie grab games AREN'T FREE – EU
Cupertino stands down after Euro legal threats
Assange™ slumps back on Ecuador's sofa after detention appeal binned
Swedish court rules there's 'great risk' WikiLeaker will dodge prosecution
prev story

Whitepapers

Why cloud backup?
Combining the latest advancements in disk-based backup with secure, integrated, cloud technologies offer organizations fast and assured recovery of their critical enterprise data.
Getting started with customer-focused identity management
Learn why identity is a fundamental requirement to digital growth, and how without it there is no way to identify and engage customers in a meaningful way.
10 threats to successful enterprise endpoint backup
10 threats to a successful backup including issues with BYOD, slow backups and ineffective security.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.