Feeds

Daily Mail savages Data Protection Act over stolen dog

Maybe a bit of sense would have helped?

The essential guide to IT transformation

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? ®

The essential guide to IT transformation

More from The Register

next story
Britain's housing crisis: What are we going to do about it?
Rent control: Better than bombs at destroying housing
Top beak: UK privacy law may be reconsidered because of social media
Rise of Twitter etc creates 'enormous challenges'
GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine
Activists told NOT to snap pics of staff at the concrete doughnut
What do you mean, I have to POST a PHYSICAL CHEQUE to get my gun licence?
Stop bitching about firearms fees - we need computerisation
Ex US cybersecurity czar guilty in child sex abuse website case
Health and Human Services IT security chief headed online to share vile images
We need less U.S. in our WWW – Euro digital chief Steelie Neelie
EC moves to shift status quo at Internet Governance Forum
Oz biz regulator discovers shared servers in EPIC FACEPALM
'Not aware' that one IP can hold more than one Website
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.