Re:Mandiant Exposes APT1, One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units
by hughw on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @07:08PM
(#5248067)
The plaintiff would not be invoking any international law. Individuals working for the Chinese government stole computer secrets from U.S companies, stored in computers on U.S. soil. That's covered by U.S. and state civil and criminal laws. If they prove their case, and a judgement is awarded, China has to pay up. If they don't pay up, then a judge sends a sheriff or a marshal to seize property. Here's a random link about a lawsuit against Iran and Syria http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/16/11733643-family-w....
'Wultz Attorney Robert Tolchin told msnbc.com that with the court judgment in hand his clients can seek Iranian and Syrian assets to collect the award. Tolchin said he couldn’t be specific, but he would explore “various avenues.” “There is a lot of litigation by people seeking the turnover of Iranian assets,” Tolchin said. “The Iranians have kept U.S. courts busy.”'
Re:Mandiant Exposes APT1, One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units
by joequant on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @07:58PM
(#5248272)
At which point China kicks the US company out of China, and said company loses far, far more than any amount that is due to hacking.
Iran and Syria aren't subject to this problem because the amount of business that US companies do in Iran and Syria is trivial.
Re:Mandiant Exposes APT1, One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units
by jstalin on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @12:47PM
(#5245766)
Possibility: A suit under the Alien Tort Statute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute
There seems to be a common myth that the "law" in "international law" is in anywhere near as strong as "domestic law". International law is mostly meaningless and just comprises agreements between countries that could be broken or ignored.