Not an enforcement priority for the same reason a lot of domestic abuse goes unprotected: the victim is uncoöperative.
> going by the West’s own laws, or the spirit of them, anyway
Pyongyang and prosecutors would have to show he attacked a “protected computer” under the CFAA [1]. Given the two routers he allegedly overwhelmed were internet connected, that shouldn’t technically be hard under Trotter and Kane. But it would be a novel expansion of interstate commerce to encompass a country with whom Americans cannot legally trade, i.e. do commerce.
Put another way, North Korea’s status as a sanctioned country might put this into a legal grey area—it might not be criminally punishable. To settle that question would take a lot of prosecutorial resources. It’s not clear those are well spent on a case where the witness won’t coöperate.
Not an enforcement priority for the same reason a lot of domestic abuse goes unprotected: the victim is uncoöperative.
> going by the West’s own laws, or the spirit of them, anyway
Pyongyang and prosecutors would have to show he attacked a “protected computer” under the CFAA [1]. Given the two routers he allegedly overwhelmed were internet connected, that shouldn’t technically be hard under Trotter and Kane. But it would be a novel expansion of interstate commerce to encompass a country with whom Americans cannot legally trade, i.e. do commerce.
Put another way, North Korea’s status as a sanctioned country might put this into a legal grey area—it might not be criminally punishable. To settle that question would take a lot of prosecutorial resources. It’s not clear those are well spent on a case where the witness won’t coöperate.
[1] https://www.coreyvarma.com/2015/01/what-is-the-computer-frau...