Violation of Privacy Policy.

[pbminor]

There are numerous ways to get this information from a variety of sources. Everything from financial filings, to DBA announcements, to registering for services, contracts, etc. All because they have it does not mean that the info came from the BOE.

You can ask them to look into it, but you are not going to get any other state agency to seriously investigate the matter at this point even if they might have some potential jurisdiction.

Just do what the rest of us do - throw away the junk mail.

What if the absolute only source that had this information WAS the BOE? What if the BOE insisted this should not be happening, but it was?
Regardless of the inability of others to understand, this IS the exact situation.
As for the junk mail, I don't care about it. As for attempting to correct something that should not be happening, I guess I'll have to wait for the advocacy group to contact me. Hopefully they can find out what's going on and how to fix it.
Thank you to all who have tried to help

 

[CdwJava]

What if the absolute only source that had this information WAS the BOE? What if the BOE insisted this should not be happening, but it was?

Highly unlikely that in this day and age that the ONLY source would be the BOE. But, if it was ... okay, what then? How do you prove it? What could you do if you did? Absent some mandatory penalty for a release of this information, you might have to show how your were harmed in order to justify a claim for damages.

They can look into it. If they can't find any malfeasance on their end, what then? You cannot compel them to investigate nor are they likely to spend any great amount of time looking into it. They might ... you might get lucky. But, if they conclude they have no idea how the info got out, or, at least that they did not identify a violation of their procedures, then what? And even if their polices were violated, what then? They can exact discipline, I suppose, but I doubt that gives you any cause of action ... unless there is some statutory penalty.

All because you believe they must be the source, does not mean they are. Nor does it mean anything unlawful or out of policy occurred. While not casually released, you might be surprised at the depth and penetration of California's CPRA and what can be obtained as a result.

 

[swalsh411]

Have you considered focusing all this attention on your business instead of obsessing over why you are receiving junk mail?

 

[cbg]

If the poster's biggest problem is that, like everyone else in the US, he receives a certain amount of junk mail, he should consider himself lucky.

 

[You Are Guilty]

My guess is that the concern rises from the fact the the OP probably named his business something terribly offensive ("I Hate Jews, Inc.") and is trying to avoid the inevitable fallout once people get wind of it.

No one cares this much just about junk mail.

 

[pbminor]

My guess is that the concern rises from the fact the the OP probably named his business something terribly offensive ("I Hate Jews, Inc.") and is trying to avoid the inevitable fallout once people get wind of it.

No one cares this much just about junk mail.

Actually, the original name was easily noticeable as a medical marijuana source. We are very small and only provide for 9 patients or less. We do not have sales but collect a once a month contribution to cover costs. Because of California laws, and according to BOE, we must pay sales taxes on the contribution. Our small garden is located on our property. After getting junk mail addressed to "Marijuana grown here" (not the real name but just as incriminating), we felt the need to purchase a security system, even though we had been growing on site for more than ten years with no concern. (Growing for ourselves. Recently expanded to provide for others)
The junk mail is not the issue. Everyone gets junk mail. We have changed the name so as not to draw attention and possible criminal activity.
THE ISSUE IS according to the local BOE, the main office of BOE in Sacramento and the advocacy group for tax payer's rights, THIS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING. Because of their insistence that this IS NOT happening, I feel compelled to correct the situation. Nothing more than that. It shouldn't be happening. It's a gov't agency. I would think they, also, would want it fixed. Junk mail takes less than ten seconds to shred. Why should I care about getting junk mail?
According to BOE, information of sole proprietorships IS NOT, EVER shared for marketing purposes.

 

[pbminor]

I found the Calif. Civil Code that deals with my situation for anyone who would like to verify the law.
1798.69. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the State Board
of Equalization may not release the names and addresses of
individuals who are registered with, or are holding licenses or
permits issued by, the State Board of Equalization except to the
extent necessary to verify resale certificates or to administer the
tax and fee provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the release by the
State Board of Equalization to, or limit the use by, any federal or
state agency, or local government, of any data collected by the board
that is otherwise authorized by law.

 

[tranquility]

According to BOE, information of sole proprietorships IS NOT, EVER shared for marketing purposes.

IT WAS NOT SHARED FOR MARKETING PURPOSES!!!!!

That does not mean that marketers don't get the information. Here's a test, go out and get arrested. What result?

You will get a ton of mail from attorneys. What an amazing coincidence. Even though NONE of the information is for marketing purposes, marketers still get it. How? Because of the magic of computers. Public information (like what is on your sales tax license by law [hence the exception to the statute]) is public information. The marketers have computers and people who review each day any changes in the public information and then scribble it down on whatever form they want so they can use if for other purposes. Illegal? No. Violation of privacy? No.

Get over it. There is no problem here. Sheesh.

 

[pbminor]

********************************************************
Get over it. There is no problem here. Sheesh.

Guess you didn't read the civil code I posted?
Also, I just spoke with the tax right's advocate again this morning. She insists this should not have happened. She is working on a way to pursue this matter. I'll update with any new info. In the mean time, if anyone can think of any good ideas on how to get this resolved, let me know.
Getting this resolved, IMO, would be for the BOE to find the cause and fix it. Regardless of what most are assuming, the fact is, as an individual (sole proprietor), the info from my sellers permit application should not have been made public. (see previously quoted Calif. civil code 1798.69)

 

[tranquility]

Apparently, you don't know how to read statutes. Look to section (b). Then go to http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/faqseller.htm#6 and see what else might be disclosed.

 

[pbminor]

Apparently, you don't know how to read statutes. Look to section (b). Then go to http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/faqseller.htm#6 and see what else might be disclosed.

Apparently you don't know how to read statutes. Read where it says "the State Board of Equalization may not release the names and addresses of individuals**************" Pay close attention to the word "individuals." This is the reason information of a sole proprietor is not released. All other business entities do not have this distinction.
And the link you gave me is more of a Q&A for people applying for a seller's permit. It is not the actual law, just a, sometimes vague, interpretation.
---------
As far as whether or not I can read statutes, in this case my skill wouldn't matter as representatives of the BOE have already insisted the law states releasing an individuals address, etc., is not legal.

 

[CdwJava]

The point is that the BOE may not be releasing the names. You are paying sales tax, correct? That sales tax requires paperwork within the city and/or county of operation. As a result, there are additional avenues by which the information can be obtained. I guarantee that the BOE is not the ONLY place that has the information on your business and its mailing address.

 

[pbminor]

The point is that the BOE may not be releasing the names. You are paying sales tax, correct? That sales tax requires paperwork within the city and/or county of operation. As a result, there are additional avenues by which the information can be obtained. I guarantee that the BOE is not the ONLY place that has the information on your business and its mailing address.

Thanks for the reply.
In this case, the new seller's permit has not yet been used, for any reason, anywhere. We obtained the permit in April 2012. As of yet, no business of any sort has been conducted with this permit.
I can also guarantee that the BOE is not the only place that has my info., because they released it and it's now on a marketing mailing list. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I know it's hard to believe, but my info, that is now on a marketing list, did originate from the BOE seller's permit specifically. If people can accept that I've already excluded all other sources, maybe they can help me come up with a solution based on the reality that I am most certain of.

 

[CdwJava]

What exactly do you WANT to happen?

As you have been informed, even in the unlikely event that the BOE can prove that the leak came from their organization, what do you expect to happen? Are there statutory damages for such a thing?

No one is going to jail. No one is going to pay you a ton of money. Aside from receiving an apology, what do you expect?

 

[Zigner]

I'm still trying to figure out what the OP thinks that the information on a seller's permit is confidential...