Applicable during times of armed conflict, they form the cornerstone of international humanitarian law, setting rules for the treatment of people who are not participating in the fighting -- civilians, health workers and aid workers -- as well as for the wounded, sick or prisoners of war.
Not only would it generate more destruction than any other form of conflict, but our methods for preventing it are weaker, relying mainly on psychology rather than tangible defenses.
Common Article 3 of the conventions, which relates to "non-international armed conflicts" -- the most common form of conflict in the world today -- is applicable to the situation in Syria.
Does industry have a conflict of interest in lobbying for changes in ECPA, when it will directly benefit from those changes in the form of reduced compliance costs?