So what if India-Pakistan talks failed to materialise, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=prime+minister+narendra+modi">Prime Minister Narendra Modi</a> can always trust its partners in the west.<br />
 <br />
It is September again and like last year, Modi has events lined up in the US.<br />
 <br />
Apart from the routine <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=UN+general+assembly">UN General Assembly</a>, the Indian prime minister will be visiting other parts of the continent and turning his tour into an opportunity to discuss several issues.<br />
 <br />
Modi’s tour will begin with a transit stop in <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Ireland">Ireland</a>, and he will be the first PM to visit Dublin since Jawaharlal Nehru. <br />
<br />
Apart from historical ties, Ireland holds a special attraction for India - as a tech and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=pharma">pharma hub</a>.<br />
 <br />
With more than 70 Irish tech companies in India, Ireland showcases a special model: marrying <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=tech+companies">tech companies</a> with research centres. Ireland also holds lessons for India in economic recovery. The country can also be seen as a new education destination. <br />
After Ireland, Modi is scheduled to give his speech at the UNGA in New York. He will then fly to California, San Jose and San Francisco, where a couple of big events are planned.<br />
 <br />
One of the events will focus on <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=renewable+energy">renewable energy</a>. This is important for India as during <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Paris+climate+conference">Paris climate conference</a> (COP 21) in December, India is looking to position itself as a major developer and consumer of renewable energy, as part of its plans for a cleaner planet.<br />
 <br />
Like Maddsion Square, Modi will get a rockstar reception at a community event in San Francisco on September 27. <br />
<br />
Back in New York on September 28, Modi will get ready for his second summit with <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=US+president+barack+obama">US President Barack Obama</a> in one year, where the two leaders will hold strategic dialogue.<br />
<br />
(Image: Indiatimes)<br />

Modi set to ‘Rock’ the US and meet BFF Obama over a packed schedule in his second visit in just under a year!

As per the latest annual update on Swiss banks, released by Switzerland's central bank SNB (<keyword id="173321" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Swiss-National-Bank">Swiss National Bank</keyword>), India has slipped to 75th place in terms of money held by its citizens with banks in Switzerland, while the UK remains on top. <br /><br />

	India was placed at 61st place last year, while it used to be among top-50 countries in terms of holdings in Swiss banks till 2007. The country was ranked highest at 37th place in the year 2004. 
<br /><br />

	The total money held there by foreign clients from across the world fell by nearly 4 per cent to Swiss franc (CHF) 1.42 trillion (about Rs 98 lakh crore) at the end of 2015. 
<br /><br />

	In terms of individual countries, the UK accounted for the largest chunk at about CHF 350 billion or almost 25 per cent of the total foreign money with Swiss banks. 
<br /><br />

	The US came second with nearly CHF 196 billion or about 14 per cent. No other country accounted for a double-digit percentage share, while others in the top-ten included West Indies, Germany, Bahamas, France, Guernsey, Luxembourg, Hong Kong and Panama. 
<br /><br />

	India was ranked 75th with CHF 1.2 billion (about Rs 8,392 crore), which is not even 0.1 per cent of the total foreign money in Swiss banks and is the lowest for the country in at least two decades or since 1996 - the first year for which full comparable data is available. 
<br /><br />

	Pakistan was placed higher at 69th place with CHF 1.5 billion - a shade better than 0.1 per cent of total foreign money parked with Swiss banks. 
<br /><br />

	India was also lowest ranked among the BRICS nations - Russia was ranked 17th (CHF 17.6 billion), China 28th (CHF 7.4 billion), Brazil 37th (CHF 4.8 billion) and South Africa 60th (CHF 2.2 billion). 
<br /><br /> Others ranked higher than India included Mauritius, Kazakhstan, <keyword id="41896" type="COUNTRY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Iran">Iran</keyword>, Chile, Angola, Philippines, Indonesia and Mexico, while a number of so-called tax havens were also placed above, including Jersey, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Marshall Islands, Bermuda, Belize, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Seychelles and St Vincent and the Grenadines. <br /><br />

	All offshore financial centres together held CHF 378 billion in Swiss banks. The total for developing countries stood at CHF 207 billion, while the same for the developed countries was much higher at CHF 833 million. 
<br /><br />

	India was ranked in top-50 continuously between 1996 and 2007, but started declining after that - 55th in 2008, 59th in 2009 and 2010 each, 55th again in 2011, 71st in 2012 and then 58th in 2013. 
<br /><br />

India slips to 75th place on money in Swiss banks; UK on top

Namaste Trump: Full text of Donald Trump's speech at Ahmedabad's Motera stadium

<div><div dir="auto"><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Kai Pfaffenbach</span></p><p class="caption">Migrants have lunch a temporary shelter in a sports hall in Hanau, Germany, October 1, 2015.</p></div><p></p></div></div>GESCHER, Germany (Reuters) - As Germany struggles to absorb more than a million migrants from the Middle East and Africa, the government is hoping to avoid the mistakes it made half a century ago when it brought in a generation of guest workers from Turkey.</p><p>In the 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Turkish men were invited in to fill labor shortages. But Germany made no attempt to help them learn the language or upgrade their skills.</p><p>The result is that three million Turks in Germany are still struggling today. They are the least integrated minority, with an unemployment rate of about 16 percent, almost three times the national average.</p><p>Now, two years after it threw open its doors to the latest migrants, Germany has devised an integration strategy based on language and job training intended to get the newcomers into work and off welfare. Among the changes are 600 hours of mandatory language lessons and fast-tracked work permits.</p><p>These measures are starting to show signs of success: a growing number of migrants are joining a labor market where a record 1.1 million jobs are unfilled.</p><p>"Things are very different here," said Merhawi Tesfay, a 32-year-old Eritrean who was hired by Kremer Machine Systems, an engineering company in the town of Gescher in western Germany.</p><p>"In Eritrea you find work through word of mouth. Here you have the Job Centre and online job sites. Everything comes with too much bureaucracy and my German wasn't good enough."</p><p>    Tesfay was hired initially as a trainee and then full-time, through ELNet, a government-funded project run by charities who assign mentors to refugees. He had been looking for work for almost three years.</p><p>Waves of migrants, many forced to flee Syria's civil war, began arriving in large numbers two years ago, one of the biggest migration movements Europe had seen since World War Two.</p><p>The challenge now for Germany, which took in the largest number of the incomers in western Europe, is to integrate them into society over the long term.</p><p>With its strong economy, Germany is better placed than many European countries, especially in southern Europe, to accept migrants. German unemployment is at its lowest since 1990 and seven straight years of growth mean the government can afford to put aside more than 10 billion euros a year for refugees.</p><p>"The lesson that Germany learnt is that integration is something you work on," said Herbert Bruecker of Humboldt University of Berlin. "It doesn't happen on its own."</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch</span></p><p class="caption">A migrant sits on her bed after arriving at the sports hall of the Jane-Addams high school transformed into a new refugee shelter in Berlin's Hohenschoenhausen district, Germany, December 9, 2015.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><h2>Give and Take</h2><p>When the first Turkish guest workers arrived in the 1960s, German politicians, still preoccupied with rebuilding the economy after World War Two, regarded them as a temporary measure. The perception was that Turks were guests who would go back home.</p><p>The Turks of course did not go home. And their wives and children began following them, just as the oil crisis of the early 1970s pushed Germany into a recession that cost many guest workers their jobs.</p><p>With low skills and little grasp of the language, many found it hard to find work again as Germany shifted away from industry towards automation and services.</p><p>This time, Germany has taken a different approach.</p><p>One month after her decision to open Germany's borders to refugees fleeing war and persecution, Chancellor Angela Merkel told parliament in September 2015 that Germany should learn from its mistakes with the Turkish guest workers and seek to integrate asylum seekers from day one.</p><p>Since then, her government has focused on language and vocational training to help 1.2 million asylum seekers get into a manpower-hungry labor market and wean them off Germany's generous welfare system.</p><p>Under legislation approved in August 2016, integration courses including language learning were made mandatory for all refugees and asylum seekers from countries such as Syria, Eritrea and Afghanistan.</p><p>The new rules also included a 'Give and Take' clause giving authorities powers to cut financial aid to asylum seekers if they don't attend language courses.</p><p>    The government speeded up work permits for asylum seekers, and scrapped a rule under which Job Centres had to prove they couldn't find a European Union citizen for a vacancy before they could offer it to a refugee.</p><p>There are several signs that the measures are working: Some 203,000 migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria and Somalia were employed in May, according to the Labour Agency, 23,000 more than in February.</p><p>"The employment numbers leave much to be desired," said Thomas Liebig of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. "But clearly many of the measures that have been taken are in the right direction."</p><h2>Incentives</h2><p>The government is also offering financial incentives for companies that offer vocational traineeships to refugees and asylum seekers. This could amount to half a new recruit's salary for a year.</p><p>More than 13,500 refugees are taking part in these schemes, which involve learning a profession at a technical college while at the same time gaining experience with a company.</p><p>    While it's too early to say whether the program is a success in Germany, salary assistance schemes have boosted migrant employment rates in Scandinavia.</p><p>"Most of the refugees come from countries where they either study or work," said Christina Mersch, who heads a government-funded project at the DIHK Chambers of Commerce called 'Companies integrate refugees'. "So it's difficult to explain to them that in Germany you can do both simultaneously."</p><p>Germany suffers from labor shortages as its population ages. This bodes well for the largely low-skilled migrants given that sectors requiring unskilled labor such as catering and hospitality are growing fastest.</p><p>"In the last three years, 1.6 million positions were created in low-skilled sectors, 45 percent of which were jobs for which one requires no formal qualifications," said Bruecker of Humboldt University. "We don't only need doctors and engineers."</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Bernadett Szabo</span></p><p class="caption">A womanl holds a picture of German Chancellor Angela Merkel as migrants set off on foot for the border with Austria from Budapest, Hungary, September 4, 2015.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><h2>Here to Stay</h2><p>Despite its integration push, Germany appears to be repeating one mistake it made with the Gastarbeiter in the 1960s. Last year it granted fewer applicants full refugee status, suggesting it is expecting some migrants to go home.</p><p>Temporary residence permits, rather than full refugee status, hamper integration, economists say, as this discourages companies from hiring people who may not remain in Germany.</p><p>In the first seven months of last year, more than three-quarters of Syrian applicants were granted full refugee status and just over one-fifth were given a one-year residence permit.</p><p>Over the same period this year, only one third of Syrians were granted full refugee status and six out of ten got a temporary permit.</p><p>"The main mistake is that most refugees are being given temporary residency permits because of the false expectation that they would return," said Bruecker. "This could have fatal economic consequences. Why would firms invest in someone whose prospects to remain are uncertain?"</p><p>About 90 percent of the new arrivals have said in surveys they want to stay in Germany permanently.</p><p>The stricter asylum rules were quietly introduced last year after Merkel's conservatives were punished in regional elections by Germans angry with her decision to welcome asylum seekers. Voters backed the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is expected to enter the national parliament for the first time in a general election on Sept. 24.</p><p>Whether Germany's integration strategy succeeds will depend largely on how many migrants arrive in the months and years after the election, in which Merkel is expected to win a fourth term.</p><p>"I don't think Germany will fail," said Reiner Klingholz of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development, noting that 116,000 asylum applications were filed in the first seven months of this year, well down on the crisis year of 2015.</p><p>"But another dramatic surge in asylum arrivals may well overwhelm the system," he said. "The first refugee crisis produced the AfD. A second one could bring down a government."</p><p> </p><p>(Additional reporting by Daniel Felleiter; Editing by Giles Elgood)</p></div></div><div><div data-qa-component="item-detail--meta-data"></div></div>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-inside-pimple-pus-bacteria-acne-2017-8">All the nasty things inside a pimple - and why you should stop popping them</a></h3>        <div>                    </div>    </div>

Germany hopes to integrate over 1 million migrants better than it did with Turkish immigrants in the 60s

<p></p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div>Diplomatic relations between the United States and Australia grew surprisingly tense in recent days, after reports emerged of a <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-australia-prime-minister-turnbull-phone-call-2017-2">contentious phone call</a> between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Wednesday.<p>Trump accused Turnbull of using a recently brokered refugee resettlement deal to send the US the "next Boston bombers," calling the arrangement "the worst deal ever" before hanging up on him, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.d9634d85b59e">The Washington Post</a>.</p><p>The fate of the refugee deal has been unclear ever since Trump signed an executive order halting refugee arrivals into the US for 120 days and barring travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.</p><p>The Australian government this week sought reassurance that the deal will be honored regardless of the immigration ban. And though the White House has said the deal will be honored, details are still up in the air.</p><p>Here's everything you need to know about the deal that has sparked a small diplomatic crisis between two usually friendly nations:</p><h3>What the refugee deal is</h3><p></p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div>Last November, the Australian government announced it had <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australia-has-a-new-deal-to-settle-nauru-and-manus-island-refugees-in-the-us-2016-11">reached an agreement</a> with the Obama administration to resettle in the United States refugees who are currently held in detention facilities on two islands far from the Australian mainland: Nauru and Manus Island.<p>The exact number of refugees being resettled wasn't specified by the Australian government, but White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer pegged it at <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/01/white-house-australian-refugees-deal-resettle-extreme-vetting">approximately 1,250</a> - not quite the "thousands" Trump had claimed in his tweet.</p><p>The nationalities of the refugees have not been confirmed by the Australian government, but <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-us-officials-postpone-interviews-with-asylum-seekers-held-in-australian-camps-2017-2">refugee advocates say</a> many are from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan - countries on which Trump recently imposed immigration restrictions - as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of the refugees are also stateless.</p><p>Just two months before the deal was struck, the Australian government <a href="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-at-president-obamas-leaders-summit-on-refugees">announced</a> it would take in asylum-seekers from US-backed detention facilities in Costa Rica.</p><p>While the agreement is not explicitly a quid pro quo arrangement, the two deals ensure the countries are essentially swapping refugees with one another, with each country relieving the other of the responsibility of detaining asylum-seekers.</p><h3><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div></h3><h3>Why the international community dislikes it</h3><p>Australia has long been <a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54669#.WJTychiZP1w">criticized</a> by countries around the world - including the US - for its practice of turning back asylum boats, implementing mandatory detention policies, and transferring refugees to other countries.</p><p>The average amount of time refugees are held in the detention facilities is 469 days, and nearly one-third of those detained have been held for more than two years, according to <a href="https://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/immigration-detention-statistics-30-nov-2016.pdf">data from the Australian government</a>.</p><p>Beyond that, the offshore detention centers have become infamous for reports of human-rights abuses and violence against detainees, many of whom are children.</p><p>Humanitarian workers who have visited the Nauru and Manus Island detention centers allege that instances of violence, sexual assault, and degrading treatment are commonplace, and many refugees and asylum-seekers suffer severe mental-health problems due to their prolonged detention and uncertainty for their future.</p><p>Even North Korea, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/nov/10/un-countries-line-up-to-criticise-australias-human-rights-record">The Guardian reported</a>, slammed Australia at a United Nations human-rights council session in 2015, saying it had "serious concerns" about reports of human-rights violations at the facilities.</p><p>The deal for the US to resettle the refugees has therefore come under some scrutiny, as it essentially legitimizes Australia's practice of intercepting asylum seekers and detaining them instead of forcing the country to change its policies.</p><p>The US agreement to resettle the refugees has been given the blessing of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN's refugee agency, which will help the two countries in the resettlement process - but, like the US-Australia deal, it's a one-off arrangement that likely won't be repeated.</p><p>The UNHCR maintains that Australia's policy of detaining asylum-seekers offshore is illegal.</p><p>"We, all of us, are very clear that this is a one-off, good offices, exceptional humanitarian type of involvement because we do not believe that the future of handling this lies in sending people to Manus Island and Nauru," Volter Turk, assistant high commissioner with the UNHCR, told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/australia/refugee-deal-united-states-nations.html?_r=0">The New York Times</a> last November.</p><h3>Why Australia won't just resettle the refugees on its mainland</h3><p></p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div>The Turnbull government has been ironclad in its opposition to resettling the refugees detained on Nauru and Manus Island, arguing that the issue is one of border security.<p>Although the country recently pledged to up its <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/RefugeeResettlement#_Toc461022107">annual refugee intake</a> to 19,000 from 13,750 in 2015-16, most of those arrivals are resettled through the UN's refugee agency. They arrive in Australia legally, whereas those who travel by boat do so illegally.</p><p>Australia is loath to accept the boat-borne arrivals, on grounds that successful asylum-seekers who make the journey by boat will embolden others to attempt the same and perpetuate the business of human smuggling.</p><p>In fact, Turnbull is so opposed to allowing the refugees detained on Nauru and Manus to enter Australia, his administration refused to entertain an <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/10/31/nz-says-australia-won-t-accept-refugee-deal.html">offer from New Zealand</a> to resettle 150 of those refugees per year. The line of reasoning was that should those refugees eventually gain New Zealand citizenship, they would also gain travel rights to Australia.</p><p>"It's a back-door way to get into Australia, and would have been a green light to people smugglers," Australia's immigration minister, Peter Dutton, told media last April.</p><p>Even when Australia announced the refugee deal with the US, Turnbull took pains to describe the situation as a "one-off agreement" that would not be offered to future asylum-seekers attempting the journey to Australia by sea.</p><p>"We need to send, now more than ever, the clearest and most unequivocal message to people smugglers and their would-be passengers that, if they seek to come to Australia unlawfully, they will not succeed," <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2016-11-13/press-conference-minister-immigration-and-border-protection">Turnbull said</a> at a November press conference announcing the deal.</p><p>Turnbull even announced a so-called "<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/dozen-naval,-abf-ships-sent-off-to-block-people-smugglers/8023636">ring of steel</a>" to enforce Australia's border in preparation for the deal, lest the news encourage a wave of asylum-seekers to attempt to travel to Australia by sea in the hopes that they, too, can be resettled in the US.</p><p>The government launched "the largest and most capable maritime surveillance and response fleet Australia has ever deployed," specifically to intercept boats of asylum seekers and turn them away from the country.</p><h3>What's next</h3><p></p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div>Australians have been wondering about the future of the deal since the moment it was announced by Turnbull, as it's no secret that Trump has been opposed to allowing refugees into the US.<p>In the wake of the now-infamous phone call between Trump and Turnbull, the White House has said it plans to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-asylum-idUSKBN15F2RM">honor the deal</a> and apply "extreme vetting" to all the arrivals. Indeed, the executive order Trump signed barring all refugees for 120 days included an exception for preexisting international agreements, widely presumed to refer to the deal with Australia.</p><p>But recent reports from <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-us-officials-postpone-interviews-with-asylum-seekers-held-in-australian-camps-2017-2">Reuters</a> and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/australia-us-refugee-deal-turnbull-trump/">CNN</a> indicate that US immigration officials have been postponing interviews with asylum-seekers on Nauru, raising speculation that the Trump administration is already seeking to block or renegotiate the resettlement deal.</p><p>It's also unclear what US-Australian relations will look like going forward, especially if the refugee deal collapses. Australia has long been a strong ally of the US, and is the only country to have fought alongside it in every conflict since World War I.</p><p>Top Republican senators <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/mccain-australia-trump-call-2017-2">showed support for Australia</a> on Wednesday and Thursday, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee both phoned Australia's ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey, to reassure him of US support.</p><p>And on Friday, Trump extended something of an olive branch to Turnbull in a tweet:</p><div></div>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/vetting-process-refugees-enter-us-syria-iraq-executive-order-ban-libya-sudan-2017-1">Here's the 20-step vetting process refugees must follow to enter the US</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="85bTliOTE6PEStnPOWCubLqNpvHjIvIg" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

Everything we know about what Trump called the 'worst deal ever' between the US and Australia

NO ENTRY: How Japan's shockingly low refugee intake is shaped by the paradox of isolation, a demographic time bomb, and the fear of North Korea

Full transcript of PM Narendra Modi's TV interview

<p><span><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="http://pictures.reuters.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&amp;VBID=2C0BXZ1X3E74F&amp;SMLS=1&amp;RW=1440&amp;RH=720#/SearchResult&amp;VBID=2C0BXZ1X3E74F&amp;SMLS=1&amp;RW=1440&amp;RH=720&amp;POPUPPN=26&amp;POPUPIID=2C0BF1FW8JQF1">REUTERS/Neil Hall</a></span></p><p class="caption">Protestors hold banners in Parliament Square during a 'March for Europe' demonstration against Britain's decision to leave the European Union, central London, Britain July 2, 2016.</p></div><p></p></div></div></span></p><p><span>In the aftermath of the United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union, we are left with more questions than answers. What </span><a href="https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/pb_piris_brexit_12jan16.pdf" target="_blank">kind of relationship</a><span> will the UK now forge with the EU, and how will that affect economic relations and migration? </span></p><p><span>Will </span><a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36621030" target="_blank">Scotland</a><span> and </span><a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/what-does-brexit-mean-northern-ireland" target="_blank">Northern Ireland</a><span> opt to leave? What is the future of British <keyword id="6358883" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Politics">politics</keyword>, given turbulence within both the </span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/conservative-leadership-rift-widens-brexit" target="_blank">Conservative</a><span> and </span><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/eu-referendum-hilary-benn-sacked-from-shadow-cabinet-by-jeremy-c/" target="_blank">Labour</a><span> Parties? </span></p><p><span>Will a successful Brexit set a precedent for other EU members -- perhaps even some </span><a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36615879" target="_blank">eurozone members</a><span>-- to leave the union? What are the long-term economic consequences of the resulting uncertainty? </span></p><p><span>Will Brexit even happen at all, given the </span><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-campaigners-there-is-no-plan-next-pm-tory-leadership-contest-a7104711.html" target="_blank">absence</a><span> of a clear post-referendum plan, the apparent </span><a href="http://qz.com/717182/a-brexit-conspiracy-theory-nails-the-no-win-situation-boris-johnson-now-finds-himself-in/" target="_blank">unwillingness</a><span> of 'Leave' campaign leaders to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and the fact that the referendum was </span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/fightback-against-brexit-on-cards-remain-eu-referendum-heseltine" target="_blank">advisory and non-binding</a><span>? Answers to these questions will make themselves evident in the coming weeks, months, and years.</span></p><p>But there's a bigger question worth asking: What are the implications of Brexit for democracy? Arguably, Brexit represents the first major casualty of the ascent of digital democracy over representative democracy. This claim deserves an explanation.</p><p>When historians look back at the world of the past 25 years, they will likely associate it not with terrorism or growing inequality but with the twin phenomena of the "<a href="http://www.economist.com/node/11402606" target="_blank">rise of the rest</a>" (particularly China and India) and of globalization. Globalization involves the easier, faster and cheaper flow of goods, people, capital and information. One big enabler of globalization is the internet, the global network of networks that allows billions of people to cheaply and easily access enormous amounts of digital information.</p><p>The rise of service and high-technology industries, trade liberalization, <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7869319/largest-container-ship" target="_blank">container shipping</a>, and the development of <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/employment-and-growth/financial-globalization" target="_blank">financial markets</a> have also been important enablers, as is the increased ease and lower cost of travel, particularly <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline-ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/" target="_blank">by air</a>.</p><p>Many <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113272/eric-schmidt-and-jared-cohenthe-new-digital-ages-futurist-schlock" target="_blank">technology optimists</a> have assumed that globalization would lead to the democratization of information and decision-making, and also greater cosmopolitanism. Citizens would be better informed, less likely to be silenced, and able to communicate their views more effectively to their leaders. They would also have greater empathy and understanding of other peoples the more they lived next to them, visited their countries, read their news, communicated, and did business with them. Or so the thinking went.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Reuters/Neil Hall</span></p><p class="caption">Former Mayor of London Boris Johnson (L) and Britain's Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove pose at a Vote Leave rally in London, Britain, June 4, 2016.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>But there has been little to justify such panglossianism. There is <a href="https://www.amazon.in/Internet-Freedom-2-1-Developing-Democracies-ebook/dp/B00U32PWKI" target="_blank">some evidence</a> for a correlation between greater information, political democratization and economic progress, in that all three have advanced steadily, if at different paces, over the past two decades.</p><p>But that correlation is weak. Instead, digital democracy -- the ability to receive information in almost real time through mass media and to make one's voice heard through social media -- has contributed to polarization, gridlock, dissatisfaction and misinformation. This is as equally applicable to the countries in which modern democracy took root -- in the United States and Europe -- as it is to India, the biggest and most complex democracy in the developing world.</p><p>The ascent of digital democracy around the world has some shared features. One characteristic is that access to greater information has, rather counterintuitively, contributed to a "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fact-checking-in-a-post-fact-world/2016/05/19/d37434e2-1d0f-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html" target="_blank">post-fact</a>" information environment. Nick Cohen -- speaking of British pro-"Leave" journalists-turned-politicians Boris Johnson and Michael Gove --<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/boris-johnson-michael-gove-eu-liars" target="_blank">called out</a> their use of bold claims, their contempt for practical questions, their sneering disregard for expertise, and their transgressions of the bounds of political spin.</p><p>These tactics are not all that dissimilar to Donald Trump's assertions about Barack Obama's birth certificate or <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261303-feds-push-back-on-myth-syrian-refugee-stat-used-by-trump" target="_blank">immigration policies</a>, or Subramanian Swamy's <a href="http://scroll.in/article/810515/mentally-not-fully-indian-swamys-attack-on-rajan-reflects-paradox-of-bjps-approach-to-nris" target="_blank">insinuations</a> about the nationality of senior Indian policymakers.</p><p>But leaders only exploit the vulnerabilities of a post-fact world. The conditions have been laid by the digital sphere. A recent example springs to mind. There is a widespread belief on Indian social media that US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is somehow anti-India, pro-Pakistan, and/or anti-Modi. I am no supporter of Ms. Clinton, but as someone who worked on foreign affairs in Washington and knows many of her advisors, I found these claims baffling.</p><p>In fact, Clinton's political opponents (whether <a href="http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/15clinton.htm" target="_blank">Barack Obama</a> in 2008 or <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-foundation-india-us-nuclear-deal-amar-singh-cii-2875427/" target="_blank">Donald Trump</a> in 2016) have accused her of being too close to India, while Pakistanis often view her as <a href="http://www.dawn.com/news/1114535" target="_blank">critical</a> of their country and Prime Minister Modi appears to enjoy <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/clintons-meet-narendra-modi/" target="_blank">cordial relations</a> with her. After some inquiries, and a few tips, I managed to trace these sentiments to a single publication, a poorly sourced and misleading <a href="http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/obama-quietly-reverses-hillarys-get-modi-policy" target="_blank">column</a> that gained widespread circulation upon its release. The article's contents were deemed sufficiently credible to have now become instilled as absolute fact in the minds of many Indians active online. In a digital democracy, a lie or (better yet) a half-lie if told enough times becomes truth.</p><p>Another outcome of digital democracy may be a variation of what the psychologist Barry Schwartz has <a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=g422yyua-P8C" target="_blank">called</a> the paradox of choice. Quite possibly, the greater abundance of political choice leads to less satisfaction, and the result is citizens increasingly voicing their displeasure with their available political and policy choices.</p><p>The political platforms of mainstream parties rarely adhere entirely to individual voters' views. That may explain why many voters are gravitating towards parties, factions or leaders who offer the simplest messages, and project themselves as alternatives to the mainstream.</p><p>A third result of digital democracy, and one that has been better documented, is the political echo chamber. Social media, rather than creating connections with people who possess differing views and ideologies, tends to reinforce prejudices. As the psychologist Nicholas DiFonzo has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/04/21/barack-obama-and-the-psychology-of-the-birther-myth/the-echo-chamber-effect" target="_blank">noted</a>, "Americans across the political spectrum tend to trust the news media (and 'facts' provided by the media) less than their own social group."</p><p>This makes it easier for views and rumours to circulate and intensify within like-minded groups. Similar digital gerrymandering was evident in the EU Referendum in Britain and the polarization is palpable in the Indian online political space.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Olivia Harris/Reuters</span></p><p class="caption">Nigel Farage.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>Finally, instant information has increased the theatricality of politics. With public statements and positions by governments, political parties and individual leaders now broadcast to constituents in real time, compromise, a necessary basis of good governance, has become more difficult. When portrayed as a betrayal of core beliefs, compromise often amounts to political suicide.</p><p>Political grandstanding also contributes to legislative gridlock, with elected representatives often resorting to <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/walkout-in-ls-over-v-k-singhs-remark/" target="_blank">walkouts</a>, <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/06/house-sit-went-people-made-happen/" target="_blank">sit-ins</a>, or <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dennis-skinner-called-prime-minister-7734873" target="_blank">insults</a> -- all manufactured for maximum viral effect -- instead of trying to reach solutions behind closed doors. Even as ease of travel allows legislators to spend more time in their constituencies, making them more sensitized to their constituents' concerns, less gets done at the national or supranational level. It is a trend that, once again, applies equally to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/us/politics/congress-shutdown-debate.html?_r=0" target="_blank">United States</a>, <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/section/social-europe-jobs/news/merkel-freezes-germany-s-debate-over-new-immigration-law/" target="_blank">Europe</a>, and <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/politics/parliament-logjam-can-congress-beat-bjps-record-of-disruption-2361104.html" target="_blank">India</a>.</p><p><span>The unintended consequences of digital democracy -- misinformation and discontent, polarization and gridlock -- mean that the boundary between politician and troll is blurring. The tone of democratic politics increasingly reflects that of anonymous online discourse: nasty, brutish, and short. And successful politicians are increasingly those who are able to take advantage of the resulting sentiments. </span></p><p><span>Exploiting divisions, appealing to base instincts, making outlandish claims, resorting to falsehoods, and pooh-poohing details and expertise. All that could just as easily describe the playbooks of populists around the world, on the right and left: Marine Le Pen, Frauke Petry, Donald Trump or Subramanian Swamy as much as Jeremy Corbyn, Beppe Grillo, Bernie Sanders or Arvind Kejriwal.</span></p><div itemprop="articleBody"><p>In all these cases, populists are willing to cross the lines that mainstream parties have flirted with, becoming forces that the centre cannot hold. US Republicans <a href="http://nbclatino.com/2013/07/24/poll-anti-immigrant-rhetoric-hurts-republicans-in-battleground-states/" target="_blank">fanned</a> the anti-immigration sentiments that first the Tea Party and then Trump are only taking to their natural conclusions, just as mainstream Democrats' economic protectionism has been seized upon by Sanders.</p><p>Cameron's <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/11/britain-and-eu-0" target="_blank">euroscepticism</a>, explained away initially as constructive criticism, spiralled out of control with Brexit, just as those who pronounced the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8026708/Ed-Miliband-New-Labour-is-dead.html" target="_blank">death of New Labour</a> helped paved the way for Corbyn. Will the same one day apply in India, to the economic populism of the Congress, of which Kejriwal has become a new torchbearer, or to the chauvinism of the right, which Swamy now threatens to run away with?</p><p>Brexit is not anti-globalization so much as a product of globalization. It is also a product of democracy rather than an affront to it. But it is a democracy of a different sort, one that many of its ideological forebears anticipated.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Neil Hall</span></p><p class="caption">Vote leave supporters wave Union flags, following the result of the EU referendum, outside Downing Street in London, Britain June 24, 2016.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>When James Madison <a href="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm" target="_blank">warned</a> of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority," or John Stuart Mill <a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7DcoAAAAYAAJ" target="_blank">cautioned</a> against "a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression," or BR Ambedkar <a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Eio8BQAAQBAJ&amp;pg" target="_blank">argued</a> (in a slightly different context) that "political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny," they could just as easily have been speaking in 2016 as in 1787, 1859, or 1936. Democrats around the world may not yet be married to the mob, but plenty have been betrothed.</p><p>None of this should be interpreted as some kind of nostalgia for an older, simpler world. That world was not necessarily simpler, but it was more <a href="http://www.amazon.in/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010" target="_blank">violent and chaotic, prejudiced and unfair</a>, and <a href="http://www.amazon.in/Great-Escape-Health-Origins-Inequality/dp/0691165629" target="_blank">poor and backward</a>. It may be hard to discern amid the smoke and noise, but there are some benefits to digital democracy. Information is no longer in the hands of the few.</p><p>It is easier than ever to bring injustices to light. And the same process can throw up mainstream leaders from backgrounds that are far from privileged, such as a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2015/05/26/heres-how-the-first-president-of-the-social-media-age-has-chosen-to-connect-with-americans/" target="_blank">Barack Obama</a>, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/01/quiet-german" target="_blank">Angela Merkel</a>, or <a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=sJUfAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT54#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" target="_blank">Narendra Modi</a>. Two of the three, Obama and Modi, rose to power on the backs of unprecedented social media movements.</p><p>But representative democracy as we have come to know it is under threat, and Brexit represents the first major casualty. Rather than fight the tide, a collective rethink is needed about how to make democracies resilient and productive in the digital age. It won't be easy.</p></div>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-navy-just-flexed-its-muscles-in-the-worlds-most-contested-region-2016-6">The US Navy just flexed its muscles in the world's most contested region</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="pjZ21hNDE68K5rW-eqJMqAdR3UKOkBx3" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

The Brexit is the first major casualty of digital democracy

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images</span></p><p class="caption">British Prime Minister David Cameron.</p></div><p></p></div></div>A highly respected cryptographer and security expert is warning that David Cameron's proposed ban on strong encryption threatens to "destroy the internet."</p><p>Last week, <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-cameron-encryption-back-doors-iphone-whatsapp-2015-7">the British Prime Minister told Parliament that he wants to</a> "ensure that terrorists do not have a safe space in which to communicate." </p><p>Strong encryption refers to the act of scrambling data in such a way that it cannot be understood by anyone without the correct key or password - even law enforcement with a warrant, or the software manufacturer itself. It's used in some of the most popular tech products in the world, including the iPhone, WhatsApp messenger, and Facebook. </p><p>But amid heightened terror fears, Cameron says "we must look at all the new media being produced and ensure that, in every case, we are able, in extremis and on the signature of a warrant, to get to the bottom of what is going on."</p><p>The Prime Minister <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-cameron-encryption-apple-pgp-2015-1">first indicated that he would try and clamp down on secure communications</a> that could not be decrypted by law enforcement even with a warrant back in January, in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris. His comments sparked <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/britains-proposed-encryption-ban-is-totally-unworkable-2015-1">an immediate flurry of condemnation from privacy and security activists,</a> but his recent statements show he's not backing down. (Number 10 has not responded to requests for clarification about Cameron's comments.) </p><p class="p1">Bruce Schneier is a widely respected crypography and security expert and fellow at the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. He serves on the board of digital liberties pressure group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and writes frequently on encryption and security. Business Insider reached out to Schneier to discuss the feasibility of Cameron' proposed ban on "safe spaces" online. He didn't hold back. </p><p><strong>BUSINESS INSIDER: What was your immediate reaction to Cameron's proposals?</strong></p><p><strong><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Rama/Wikimedia Commons (CC-BY-SA 2.0)</span></p><p class="caption">Bruce Schneier.</p></div><p></p></div></div>Bruce Schneier:</strong> My immediate reaction was disbelief, followed by confusion and despair. When I first read about Cameron's remarks, I was convinced he had no idea what he was really proposing. The idea is so preposterous that it was hard to imagine it being seriously suggested. But while Cameron might not understand what he's saying, surely he has advisers that do. Maybe he didn't listen to them. Maybe they aren't capable of telling him that what he's saying doesn't make sense. I don't understand <keyword id="6354868" type="COUNTRY" weightage="60" keywordseo="UK">UK</keyword> <keyword id="6358883" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Politics">politics</keyword> sufficiently well to know what was going on in the background. I don't know anything about Cameron's tech background. But the only possibly explanation is that he didn't realize the full extent of what he was saying.</p><p>Then I wondered why he would even wish for such a thing? Does he realize that this is the sort of thing that only authoritarian governments do? Again, my knowledge of the UK is limited, but I assume they are a free country that champions liberty.</p><p><strong>BI: Do you think they are even possible? </strong></p><p><strong><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Sean Gallup/Getty Images</span></p><p class="caption">David Cameron shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping.</p></div><p></p></div></div>BS:</strong> Of course not. No one does. Sure, he can keep law-abiding non-technical people from using strong encryption. He can ensure that UK businesses are vulnerable to attack. But he cannot hope to prevent bad actors from using encryption to hide themselves from the police.</p><p>It's simply not possible to ban strong encryption within a country and software that uses strong encryption from crossing its borders. It's simply not possible to prevent people from installing the software they want on the computing devices they own. Countries like Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus have tried it and failed. China has tried before and is <a href="http://www.ecnmag.com/news/2015/07/new-chinese-law-reinforces-government-control-cyberspace?et_cid=4652848&amp;et_rid=60862799&amp;type=cta">trying again</a>. I wonder if Cameron is aware of the kind of company he is associating himself with.</p><p><strong>BI: Let's say the UK government was determined to try and implement an encryption ban - how would it go about trying to do this? </strong></p><p><strong><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Steve Kovach/Business Insider</span></p><p class="caption">The iPhone would require a major redesign under Cameron's proposals.</p></div><p></p></div></div>BS:</strong> It gets draconian <a href="http://boingboing.net/2015/01/13/what-david-cameron-just-propos.html">pretty fast</a>. UK citizens would be banned from using secure software, and UK companies be banned from producing secure software. The government would have to enforce Internet censorship: people couldn't download secure software, search engines couldn't answer queries about secure software, and every packet would be inspected to ensure it isn't being encrypted with secure systems. Closed computing systems like iPhone would ban their users from installing secure software, and open computing systems like Microsoft Windows would be redesigned to prohibit users from installing secure software. Free software would be banned. Anyone entering the UK with a phone or computer would have them conform to UK standards, and border control would seize any devices that fail to do so. UK researchers would be prohibited from researching secure systems.</p><p>Pretty horrible and totally infeasible. And even if Cameron turned the UK into the police state required to even attempt this sort of thing, he still wouldn't get what he claims he wants. That's the worst of it: it wouldn't work, and trying would destroy the Internet.</p><p><strong>BI: What sort of effect would this have on the UK economy and businesses?</strong></p><p><strong><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Oli Scarff/Getty Images</span></p><p class="caption">British businesses would be aversely affected by any encryption ban, Schneier says.</p></div><p></p></div></div>BS:</strong> My guess is that it would be a disaster. When the US tried to ban strong cryptography in the 1990s, hundreds of foreign companies sprang up to fill the gap in what the market demanded. And that was before so much of our day-to-day lives relied on the Internet. Today, security is vitally important in everything we do online, and this law would put UK businesses and citizens under an enormous disadvantage. UK citizens would be screwed, of course, and most wouldn't be able to do anything about it. But foreign customers would avoid UK products if possible, and foreign users would avoid entrusting their data and communications to UK systems.</p><p>This isn't entirely speculative. Already security companies are moving out of the UK to avoid draconian surveillance laws, and more are talking about it. (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/20/theresa-may-yahoo-dublin-security-worry">Yahoo</a> is the big company that comes to mind.) Cameron's proposal would only make things worse.</p><p><strong>BI: Are American and other foreign businesses likely to comply with such a ban, if it were enforced?</strong></p><p><strong>BS:</strong> If the UK government starts throwing people who violate the ban in jail, businesses will either 1) comply, or 2) put themselves in a position where the UK government cannot throw their people in jail. I expect some of each would occur. Certainly many companies would pull out of the UK market rather than compromise the security of their global customers and users.</p><p><strong>BI: Is there really no way to keep users' data secure while providing backdoors to law enforcement?</strong></p><p><strong><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Luke MacGregor</span></p><p class="caption">There's no such thing as a "back door" only police can access.</p></div><p></p></div></div>BS:</strong> Yes, there really is no way.</p><p>Think of it like this. Technically, there is no such thing as a "backdoor to law enforcement." Backdoor access is a technical requirement, and limiting access to law enforcement is a policy requirement. As an engineer, I cannot design a system that works differently in the presence of a particular badge or a signed piece of paper. I have two options. I can design a secure system that has no backdoor access, meaning neither criminals nor foreign intelligence agencies nor domestic police can get at the data. Or I can design a system that has backdoor access, meaning they all can. Once I have designed this less-secure system with backdoor access, I have to install some sort of policy overlay to try to ensure that only the police can get at the backdoor and only when they are authorized. I can design and build procedures and other measures intended to prevent those bad guys from getting access, but anyone who has followed all of the high-profile hacking over the past few years knows how futile that would be.</p><p>There is an important principle here: we have one world and one Internet. Protecting communications means protecting them from everybody. Making communications vulnerable to one group means making them vulnerable to all. There just isn't any way around that.</p><p><strong>BI: Won't the proliferation of encryption help terrorists?</strong></p><p><strong>BS:</strong> No. It's the exact opposite: encryption is one of the things that protects us from terrorists, criminals, foreign intelligence, and every other threat on the Internet, and against our data and communications. Encryption protects our trade secrets, our financial transactions, our medical records, and our conversations. In a world where cyberattacks are becoming more common and more catastrophic, encryption is one of our most important defenses.</p><p>In 2010, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2010-09-01/defending-new-domain">wrote</a>: "Although the threat to intellectual property is less dramatic than the threat to critical national infrastructure, it may be the most significant cyberthreat that the United States will face over the long term." Encryption protects against intellectual property theft, and it also protects critical national infrastructure.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>AP</span></p><p class="caption">ISIS might use encryption, but that's okay.</p></div><p></p></div></div>What you're asking is much more narrow: won't terrorists be able to use encryption to protect <em>their</em> secrets? Of course they will. Like so many other aspects of our society, the benefits of encryption are general and can be enjoyed by both the good guys and the bad guys. Automobiles benefit both long-distance travelers and bank robbers. Telephones benefit both distant relatives and kidnappers. Late-night all-you-can-eat buffets benefit both hungry students and terrorists plotting their next moves.</p><p>This is simply reality. And there are two reasons it's okay. One, good people far outnumber bad people in society, so we manage to thrive nonetheless. And two, the bad guys trip themselves up in so many other ways that allowing them access to automobiles, telephones, late-night restaurants, and encryption isn't enough to make them successful.</p><p>Most of the time we recognize that harming the overwhelming number of honest people in society to try to harm the few bad people is a dumb trade-off. Consider an analogy: Cameron is unlikely to demand that cars redesign their engines so as to limit their speeds to 60 kph so bank robbers can't get away so fast. But he doesn't understand the comparable trade-offs in his proposed legislation.</p><p><strong>BI: Are there any less obvious ways in which encryption helps people on a day-to-day basis?</strong></p><p><strong><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Thomson Reuters</span></p><p class="caption">Encryption powers eBay - and every other major ecommerce website.</p></div><p></p></div></div>BS:</strong> Encryption secures everything we do on the Internet. It secures our commerce. It secures our communications. It secures our critical infrastructure. It secures our persons from criminal attack, and it secures our countries from nation-state attack. In many countries, it helps journalists, dissidents, and human rights workers stay alive. In a world of pretty bad computer security, it is the one thing that works well.</p><p><strong>BI: What encryption products would you recommend our readers to protect their communications online? </strong></p><p><strong>BS:</strong> I am a fan of <a href="http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/">Off-the-Record</a> for encrypting IM conversations on your computer, and <a href="https://whispersystems.org/#page-top">Signal</a> for encrypting both text and voice conversations on your smart phone. The encryption built in to the iPhone for both iMessage and FaceTime is also very good.</p><p>I strongly recommend turning disk encryption on wherever you can: on your computer, on your smart phone, everywhere. When you browse the Internet, use TLS on the web whenever you can. Download the plug-in <a href="https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere">HTTPS Everywhere</a>. <a href="http://www.gnupg.org/">GPG</a> is the best e-mail encryption program, but my advice is to stick to text and voice.</p><p><em> <a href="https://www.schneier.com">Bruce Schneier</a> is a security technologist, and CTO of <a href="https://www.resilientsystems.com/">Resilient Systems</a>, Inc. His latest New York Times best-seller is <a href="https://www.schneier.com/book-dg.html">"Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World."</a> He <a href="https://www.schneier.com">blogs</a>, and tweets at @schneierblog.</em></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/jerusalem-israel-police-surveillance-balloons-2014-11">These Surveillance Balloons Are The Hot New Way To Spy On People</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="pycTl4cTp5qwJ58ZCPdAB893z0V9eyP6" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

You Searched For "pakistan holding centres" and got 11 results

Modi set to ‘Rock’ the US and meet BFF Obama over a packed schedule in his second visit in just under a year!

BI India Bureau

India slips to 75th place on money in Swiss banks; UK on top

BI India Bureau

Namaste Trump: Full text of Donald Trump's speech at Ahmedabad's Motera stadium

Sriram Iyer

Germany hopes to integrate over 1 million migrants better than it did with Turkish immigrants in the 60s

Joseph Nasr

Everything we know about what Trump called the 'worst deal ever' between the US and Australia

Michelle Mark

NO ENTRY: How Japan's shockingly low refugee intake is shaped by the paradox of isolation, a demographic time bomb, and the fear of North Korea

Tara Francis Chan

Full transcript of PM Narendra Modi's TV interview

BI India Bureau

The Brexit is the first major casualty of digital democracy

Dhruva Jaishankar, Brookings …

David Cameron's proposed encryption ban would 'destroy the internet'

Rob Price

FULL TEXT: May's speech to the 2017 World Economic Forum

Will Martin

The activist in BJP: Sudhanshu Mittal

Arvind Passey