I still don't understand exactly which facts you think any of this would change and cause it to be criminal negligence. I will state a fairly blunt position:

I still don't understand exactly which facts you think any of this would change and cause it to be criminal negligence. I will state a fairly blunt position: Unless literally nobody thought or tried at all here, i would give it a 0% chance of meeting the bar of criminal negligence. The rest is a distinction without a difference. As for what you want them to do - i don't agree the investigation should cause them to feel pain - that's not a good goal for investigations, and definitely not one we should want, because it essentially presumes they did somethign wrong in the first place. A bad outcome does not mean a broken process. All processes have error bars. You can desire the error bars to be smaller, and try to back that up with criminal penalties, but an expectation that error bars will be 0 makes no sense. You can do absolutely everything right and still have people die - star trek was not wrong in that regard. Punishing that will not fix this inconvenient reality, which is why we generally don't punish it. This is also why we distinguish between inherently dangerous activities and not, for example. As for the laws, sure, i think it's totally reasonable to explore whether you want the law to be different, but again, i totally disagree with your second part. A successful attack does not imply anything is actually wrong with criminal law, or should be changed. The question is more of what error bars you want on the activity and where what they did falls - inside or outside those error bars.