From:
   [1]https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download
   15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and
   exceeding authorized access, to obtain information from a department
   and agency of the United States in furtherance of a criminal act in
   violation of the laws of the United States, that is, a violation of
   Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In
   violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l),
   1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).)
   [end of partial quote]
   There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that
   a Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial"
   application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory)
   if the Congress specifically intended that application, and was
   signified by including such language within the law
   itself.[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
   ×
   (BUTTON)
   "In [3]Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court
   held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption against
   extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute
   explicitly says otherwise."
   "[4]https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2016/06/us-supreme-co
   urt-continues-to-limit-extraterritori
   [5]http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-run
   away-canon
   From that:
   "The Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit after invoking the presumption
   against extraterritoriality. That canon of statutory interpretation
   instructs judges to assume “that legislation of Congress, unless a
   contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial
   jurisdiction of the United States.”[6][8] In applying the presumption
   in RJR Nabisco, however, a majority of four Justices[7][9] rejected
   multiple indications that Congress intended RICO’s private right of
   action to extend abroad[8][10] while raising the bar on what Congress
   must do to make its extraterritorial expectations clear.[9][11]"
        [end of quote]
   (BUTTON)
   Understanding the presumption against extraterritoriality:
   [10]https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11
   70&context=bjil
   Very interesting:
   [11]https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2019/04/some-thoughts-on-the-extra
   dition-of-julian-assange.html
   From that:
   "THE RULE OF DUAL CRIMINALITY: Even if extradition is sought only under
   the computer intrusion indictment, it will still need to meet the test
   of dual criminality, found in Article 2, which provides that "An
   offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the
   offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States." Although
   computer hacking is no doubt also a crime in the U.K., there is a
   further wrinkle of territoriality, because Assange's alleged offense
   was committed outside the United States. Another section of Article 2
   provides:
   If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the
   Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the
   provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for
   the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in
   similar circumstances. If the laws in the Requested State do not
   provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside of its
   territory in similar circumstances, the executive authority of the
   Requested State, in its discretion, may grant extradition provided that
   all other requirements of this Treaty are met."
   Unlike the U.S., however, Britain apparently takes a strict view of
   territorial jurisdiction. According to [12]The New York Times, Britain
   has already denied a [13]U.S. extradition request for computer
   intrusion, on the grounds that the offense was committed on British
   soil and would therefore have to be tried in the U.K.
   [end of quote]
   18 U.S.C. 641 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality
   reference.      [14]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
   18 U.S.C. 793(c), nor the whole 793, does not appear to explicitly have
   an  extraterritoriality reference.
   [15]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
   ×
   (BUTTON)
   18 U.S.C. 371    does not appear to explicitly have an
   extraterritoriality reference.
   [16]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
    18 U.S.C. 1030  does not appear to explicitly have an
   extraterritoriality reference.
   [17]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
                       Jim Bell

References

   1. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_v._National_Australia_Bank
   4. https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2016/06/us-supreme-court-continues-to-limit-extraterritori
   5. http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-canon
   6. http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-canon#8
   7. http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-canon#9
   8. http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-canon#10
   9. http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-canon#11
  10. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=bjil
  11. https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2019/04/some-thoughts-on-the-extradition-of-julian-assange.html
  12. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/europe/assange-extradition-us.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
  13. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-42946540
  14. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
  15. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
  16. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
  17. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030