Thread by @theDPOdaily

If this decision (first spotted by @DataCorrection) gets any traction, the myth will become that the First Tier Tribunal said that a dog’s name was personal data. To be fair, I don’t think they did that, but it’s their fault if people come to that conclusion.

The dog in question bit a woman on the leg when police were breaking up an illegal rave in Bristol causing what sound like very severe injuries. The description in the original ICO decision is grisly. This post is a lot less jokey that it would have been had I not read it.

A @WhatDoTheyKnow regular made an #FOI request for the name of the dog, the name of the handler and their qualifications, plus a bewildering final demand for "Your reasons for the dog attacking". The Tribunal says the dog info is personal data.

I want to highlight this decision as an example of something that I have mentioned before as a vital skill for the DPO – the ability and willingness to explain where your advice comes from, relating what you say back to the law.

The decision lacks any analysis: “There is no room for any doubt that these are all requests for personal data of the dog handler. It is not in question that identification of the dog would inevitably reveal his or her handler.”

That’s what you get about why the dog’s name is personal data. I was baffled, so I went back to the original ICO decision. Kudos to @ICOnews for putting FOI cases about Avon and Somerset Police under at least 3 different names, and parking this decision under the least accurate.

Anyway, I found it in the end, and in it you get a detailed explanation of why the Commissioner thinks the dog’s name is personal data: spoiler alert, if you Google the dog’s name you can find the handler. There’s more to it than that, but ICO explains it properly.

You can disagree with it, either on the DP basis that the dog’s name wouldn’t identify the handler (for the record, I’m persuaded by the ICO that it would), or because you think the data should be disclosed. I need to think about that.

The Tribunal decision make no attempt to explain itself and so is unconvincing, deserving the place in DP lore that it may end up in. The ICO decision is detailed and coherent thus much more persuasive. Different audiences need varying detail, but you've got to offer something.

Here's the Tribunal decision: bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT…

And here's the ICO decision: ico.org.uk/media/action-w…