Internet PrivacyIf you visit websites of a questionable nature, prepare to have your dirty secrets aired out for all to see. Members of Hawaii's House of Representatives are currently weighing a measure, H.B. 2288, that would save "subscriber's information" and "Internet destination history" for two whole years. Come on, Hawaii, do you not know what angry Internet users are capable of?

Essentially, every subscriber who uses the Internet in Hawaii will have the sites they visit attached to their name and address, creating a humungous concern regarding privacy. That's not even the worst part. Because the measure's wording is so broad, it doesn't specify privacy protections,  meaning: Internet companies are allowed to do what they please with the collected information (like sell it to advertisers); the police wouldn't need a court order to search through the two years' worth of info; and no encryption stipulations.

Ever use Wi-Fi in a coffee shop/bookstore/hotel on vacation? Don't do it in Hawaii. If the measure passes, your browsing history will likely be kept on record by any company that "provides access to the Internet." Over six million tourists from all over the world visit the Aloha State every year; that's a huge hoard of information just waiting to be hacked.

Not everyone is hopping on board, though, including frustrated Internet companies. "The bill represents a radical violation of privacy and opens the door to rampant Fourth Amendment violations," said Daniel Leuck, chief executive of Ikayzo. "Even forcing telephone companies to record everyone's conversations, which is unthinkable, would be less of an intrusion."

The measure is currently being spearheaded by Democratic Representative John Mizuno of Oahu, who also submitted a computer crime bill. So, Hawaiians, your state wants to invade your Internet privacy. Hopefully the powers that be wise up and realize how incredibly silly this measure is, and throw it all altogether. Who knew surfing the Web, in a state known for its beautiful waves, could be so invasive?

[via CNET]