Argument #1: The worldwide monitoring of web
usage will
prevent hacktivism in the US by people from other countries who
cannot be
prosecuted due to the lack of hacking laws around the world.
Back in 2000, two Russian hackers demanded money from various
American companies, and threatened to release their clients'
personal information if they did not listen (Brenner & Schwerba,
2007). Hacktivism is one thing that can be prevented and more easily
caught/traced if a more intense monitoring of web usage was
implemented.
Argument #2: Stricter web laws will save
money (billions) on
hack-recovery, fraud, and hacktivism-related legal matters.
If web usage was monitored more strictly, the government
would save a lot of money by preventing situations that could cost
them billions. Medicare fraud is an example of this; tracking the
problem online before it even begins could save the annual 60
billion to 90 billion dollars a year on fixing the mess caused by
Medicare fraud (Gray 2013).
SOURCES
Brenner,
Susan W., and
Joseph J. Schwerha. “Cybercrime Havens: Challenges and
Solutions.” Business
Law Today, vol. 17, no. 2, 2007, pp. 48–51. JSTOR,
JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23296752.
Gray, D. et
al.
“Fighting Cybercrime After 'United States v. Jones.'" The
Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 103, no. 3,
2013, pp.
745–801. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43895378.