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...
Some things are too big to just mess around with, I would feel extremely vulnerable having pulled such a stunt.
Sure. But OP asked why he isn’t being arrested. Plenty of people piss off the IC when they publish e.g. long-coveted (and independently discovered) zero days, or write an exposé on something an agency was hoarding for interagency political value.
Good point: a final hurdle inhibiting criminality is his lack of profits. No disgorgeable gains. That means you’re only left with damages, which again, requires the victim’s coöperation to assess.
We're already well into causus belli territory with NK, but nobody wants to go there: https://x.com/tarah/status/1798036415932187127
Summary of thread: Society doesn't handle 2nd order consequences well. NK cryptolocker attack on healthcare-involved systems in British hospitals disrupted treatment to the extent that hundreds of people died who probably wouldn't have.
Expanding on that: Organized crime groups located in and sometimes tasked by RU SVR & GRU (not to mention NK state groups) have caused sufficient disruption to US healthcare systems to have indirectly caused more US Citizen deaths than the Sept 11 attacks. Right now cyber that does not directly cause destruction such as making buildings blow up or poisoning water supply is treated as just an annoying white collar crime.
I don't think anyone wants the US Government to be in a position where their options are to admit powerlessness or get proportional against nuclear armed states.
Somewhat related: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2023/10/04/8-rules-civ...
He very much could, if politics changed. The US hates NK not because they are authoritarian but because they are not aligned. If they were to be aligned, and this guy didn't act on proper authorization, he could find himself in hot waters in the USA.
Plus he might have broken a bunch of "international" rules which could see him in trouble if he was to travel to some countries.
It is really reckless; but then there is a good chance he was acting behind some agency.
Almost certainly not. The vector would have been saved. And he wouldn’t have maintained this public profile ex post facto.
Consider, for example, taking it down during today’s state visit? (After you’ve quadruple checked that the Russians have independent connectivity.)
This means no other country has jurisdiction in North Korea, besides, there’s also no incentive to help in case DPRK asks for help.
France doesn’t investigante crimes that happen in Spain, Portugal doesn’t investigate crimes that haven in Canada, the USA doesn’t investigate crimes that happen in Germany, etc…
You’re citing centuries-old political philosophy, only remnants of which remain in our world [1].
The West that arose after WWII and through the Cold War is decidedly non-Westphalian. Concepts like human rights, non-proliferation and self determination are non-Westphalian. The Nuremberg trials were anti-Westphalian.
The closest modern analogues to (and proponents of) Westphalian philosophy are Russia, China and North Korea.
Westphalian sovereignty as a historical concern is a myth [2].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarantor_of_the_imperial_co...
[2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organi...
That's not true. You will not find a single law approved by Russian Duma that sets it as a foreign policy goal like in countries that did choose to join NATO.
Granted this was well before his total Machtergreifung, and he definitely was not equated with "Russia" at the time like he is now. But that's his telling of events, in any case.
If it's something "we like", then it's ok, if not, then prison.
Same for geopolitics... in one case, we care about teritorial integrity, that minorities should not seced, and in others we help with the breakup of countries... well.. or in some cases, we act is if nothing is happening at all, and noone wants to break away at all :)