(Note: I genuinely have no idea if that would be done outside of an authoritarian / autocratic regime. So I'm not remotely advocating it at this point.)
"Security" has a cost. The only question is whether the cost of security exceeds the cost of lack of security. Currently, lack of security has very little cost.
It would be easier and more effective to start putting CEOs in jail for security breaches of personal information. Suddenly the executive suite would be very interested in security and would start spending an appropriate amount of money on it.
- some hackers are state actors, and pointing the finger to North Korea won't help much
- some live in precarious conditions from the start, in areas where gov is unreliable. Even if you catch a bunch of them, it might not disuade others to try their chance if there's no other obvious jackpot to them.
- When the risk increases the reward can also increase as the barrier to entry is that much higher. You get a hacker scene with more high profile, super professional actors that will get more organized. Think "war on drug" style of underground actors building cell networks to manage their operations.