Contributors
Liberty
Journalist recovers video of his arrest after police deleted it
FrostX wrote:Who cares. I'm not trying to troll, but im sick of everyone who fancies themselves part of some tiananmen square event. The dude lying on the ground looking right at the camera with an american flag in his hand, or the old lady (known activist) staring at the camera covered in pepper spray... its all manufactured.. i find that more disturbing then a human being who's job is to keep the peace.(however poorly or goodly)Just because you say you're not resisting doesnt mean you're not resisting.
Who cares if it's not Tiananmen Square?At the end of the day, non-violent political protest is something that is considered a fundamental right of everyone in the US, not just sweet, photogenic people who are nice to everyone they come in contact with and no one could possibly dislike. People don't earn their rights because they are blameless enough, they get them no matter what, because that's what rights are. If some people stop getting those rights, even complete jerks that everyone hates, then they're not really rights any more. That goes for the Klan, Illinois Nazis, and Occupy protestors.
If you go to Somalia, you have warlords with their little armies of thugs, and anyone who can afford to and has the desire to can put their own little army out in the streets to do whatever they feel like. In North Korea, you only have one group of leaders that can put their own little army out in the streets to do whatever they feel like, and it's the dictatorial regime. In Syria, you have a few of the trappings of a democracy, with a "President" and a "Prime Minister", but any opposing political parties are banned by law, and they still have a monopoly on force, so at the end of the day you basically still have a warlord and an army of thugs.
In the U.S., as in other democracies, the government still has a monopoly on force, just like in Syria or North Korea. There are two key things that separate a democracy from a warlord with an army of thugs. First, there are rules that allow you to vote the leader out if you can get enough people to agree that he or she needs to go. Second, the people charged with enforcing the peace have a set of strict rules they are not allowed to violate. However much you agree with the President and/or the police, you must believe in these rules, because without the former, the President is just another warlord, and without the latter, the police are nothing but another group of thugs.
The police must be held to those rules, or they are not police anymore. So don't you dare say hooray for the police when they ignore people's rights, even when you don't think those people much deserve rights.
Very well said.
Record and share video live from your mobile phone
Instant
Video Sharing
Share videos privately with family and friends, automatically post to social networks, or broadcast to blogs and video sites.
Videos can be viewed live (right as they are being recorded) or anytime later.
21 reasons you’ll love Qik »
Share live video on your phone. Great for an occupy protest.
Bambuser - Save your police brutality video to the web before they can delete it.
I am posting several solutions to uploading video away from your recording device before the police can delete it. Deleting it is illegal by the way.
Corruption Perceptions Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Political corruption Concepts Bribery · Cronyism · Economics of corruption
Electoral fraud · Nepotism · Slush fundCorruption by country Angola · Armenia · Bahrain · Canada · Chile · China
Colombia · Cuba · Ghana · India · Indonesia · Iran
Ireland · Kenya · Kyrgyzstan · Nigeria · Pakistan
Paraguay · Philippines · Russia
South Africa · Ukraine · United States
Venezuela corruption in the UK could never happenSince 1995, Transparency International (TI) publishes the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) annually ranking countries "by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys."[1] The CPI generally defines corruption as "the misuse of public power for private benefit."[2] As of 2010[update], the CPI ranks 178 countries "on a scale from 10 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt)."[3]
Contents
[hide][edit] Methods
Transparency International commissioned Johann Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau to produce the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).[4] The 2010 CPI draws on 13 different surveys and assessments from 10 independent institutions.[5] The institutions are the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, International Institute for Management Development, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, the World Economic Forum, and the World Bank.[6] The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts.[2] Early CPIs used public opinion surveys. Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.[7]
The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.[8]
[edit] Validity
A study published in 2002 found a "very strong significant correlation" between the Corruption Perceptions Index and two other proxies for corruption; Black Market activity and overabundance of regulation. All three metrics also had a highly significant correlation with real gross domestic product per capita (RGDP/Cap). The Corruption Perceptions Index correlation with RGDP/Cap was the strongest.[9]
[edit] Limitations
Since the set of sources changes, comparing corruption over time with the CPI is inappropriate.[8][verification needed]
[edit] Criticism
The Corruption Perceptions Index has drawn increasing criticism in the decade since its launch, leading to calls for the index to be abandoned.[10][11][12] This criticism has been directed at the quality of the Index itself, and the lack of actionable insights created from a simple country ranking.[13][14] Because corruption is willfully hidden, it is impossible to measure directly; instead proxies for corruption are used. The CPI uses an eclectic mix of third-party surveys to sample public perceptions of corruption through a variety of questions, ranging from "Do you trust the government?" to "Is corruption a big problem in your country?"
The use of third-party survey data is a source of criticism. The data can vary widely in methodology and completeness from country to country. The methodology of the Index itself changes from year to year, thus making even basic better-or-worse comparisons difficult. Media outlets, meanwhile, frequently use the raw numbers as a yardstick for government performance, without clarifying what the numbers mean. A local Transparency International chapter disowned the index results after a change in methodology caused a country's scores to increase—media reported it as an "improvement".[15] Other critics point out that definitional problems with the term "corruption" makes the tool problematic for social science.
The index mainly provides a snapshot of the views of business people and country analysts. In comparison, the questions in the Eurobarometer surveys 64.3 (2005), 68.2 (2007), 72.2 (2009), and the Flash Eurobarometer 236 (2008) established by the European Commission for all of the 27 European Union members states ask the perceptions and experiences of the general public. In general, the results show a very large divergence between the perception of living in a corrupt country by the general public and the experiences of corruption in everyday life.
Aside from precision issues, a more fundamental critique is aimed at the uses of the Index. Critics are quick to concede that the CPI has been instrumental in creating awareness and stimulating debate about corruption.[not in citation given] However, as a source of quantitative data in a field hungry for international datasets, the CPI can take on a life of its own, appearing in cross-country and year-to-year comparisons that the CPI authors themselves admit are not justified by their methodology. The authors state in 2008: "Year-to-year changes in a country's score can either result from a changed perception of a country's performance or from a change in the CPI’s sample and methodology. The only reliable way to compare a country’s score over time is to go back to individual survey sources, each of which can reflect a change in assessment." [16]
The CPI produces a single score per country, which as noted above, cannot be compared year-to-year. In the late 2000s, the field has moved towards unpackable, action-oriented indices (such as those by the International Budget Partnership or Global Integrity), which typically measure public policies that relate to corruption, rather than try to assess "corruption" as a whole via proxy measures like perceptions.[13] These alternative measures use original (often locally collected) data and so have the same non-comparability problem as the CPI and are limited in scope to specific policy practices (such as public access to parliamentary budget documents) and so they are only an indicator of visible corruption/policy corruption.
[edit] Rankings
Worldwide Corruption Perceptions ranking of countries
published by Transparency International
Rank Country Index 2011 2011[17] 2010[18] 2009[19] 2008[20] 2007[21] 2006[22] 2005[23] 2004[24] 2003 2002 1 New Zealand
9.5 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 2 Denmark
9.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 2 Finland
9.4 9.2 8.9 9.0 9.4 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.9 4 Sweden
9.3 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.0 5 Singapore
9.2 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 6 Norway
9.0 8.6 8.6 7.9 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.8 8.5 8.6 7 Netherlands
8.9 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.6 8.9 9.0 8.8 8 Australia
8.8 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.5 8 Switzerland
8.8 8.7 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 8.8 8.5 8.4 10 Canada
8.7 8.9 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.7 9.0 8.9 11 Luxembourg
8.5 8.5 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.7 9.0 8.7 12 Hong Kong
8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.0 8.2 7.9 13 Iceland
8.3 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.2 14 Germany
8.0 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.8 8.0 8.2 7.7 7.3 7.4 14 Japan
8.0 7.8 7.7 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.1 7.1 16 Austria
7.8 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.7 8.0 7.8 7.8 16 Barbados
7.8 7.8 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.9 16 United Kingdom
7.8 7.6 7.7 7.7 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.3 19 Belgium
7.5 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.1 6.6 19 Ireland
7.5 8.0 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.5 6.9 7.5 21 Bahamas
7.3 22 Chile
7.2 7.2 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 22 Qatar
7.2 7.7 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.6 24 United States
7.1 7.1 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.6 25 France
7.0 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.3 7.4 7.5 6.9 6.3 6.7 25 Saint Lucia
7.0 7.0 7.1 6.8 25 Uruguay
7.0 6.9 6.7 6.9 6.7 6.4 5.9 5.5 5.1 5.1 28 United Arab Emirates
6.8 6.3 6.5 5.9 5.7 6.2 6.2 6.1 5.2 29 Estonia
6.4 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.4 5.5 5.6 5.6 30 Cyprus
6.3 6.3 6.6 6.4 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.4 6.1 31 Spain
6.2 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.7 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.0 32 Botswana
6.1 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.4 5.6 5.9 6.0 5.7 6.4 32 Portugal
6.1 6.0 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.3 32 Republic of China
6.1 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.6 35 Slovenia
5.9 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.9 6.0 5.2 36 Israel
5.8 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.3 36 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
5.8 6.4 6.5 6.1 38 Bhutan
5.7 5.7 5.0 5.4 5.0 39 Malta
5.6 5.6 5.2 5.8 5.8 6.4 6.4 39 Puerto Rico
5.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 41 Cape Verde
5.5 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.9 41 Poland
5.5 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.0 43 South Korea
5.4 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.5 4.3 4.5 44 Brunei
5.2 5.5 5.5 44 Dominica
5.2 5.2 5.9 6.0 5.6 4.5 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.2 46 Bahrain
5.2 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.0 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.1 46 Macau
5.2 5.0 5.3 5.4 5.7 6.6 46 Mauritius
5.2 5.4 5.4 5.5 4.7 5.1 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.5 49 Rwanda
5.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.1 50 Costa Rica
4.8 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.1 4.2 4.9 4.3 4.5 50 Lithuania
4.8 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.8 50 Oman
4.8 5.3 5.5 5.5 4.7 5.4 6.3 6.1 6.3 50 Seychelles
4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.5 3.6 4.0 4.4 54 Hungary
4.6 4.7 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.9 54 Kuwait
4.6 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.3 56 Jordan
4.5 4.7 5.0 5.1 4.7 5.3 5.7 5.3 4.6 4.5 57 Czech Republic
4.4 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.3 4.2 3.9 3.7 57 Namibia
4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.7 5.7 57 Saudi Arabia
4.7 4.7 4.3 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 4.5 60 Malaysia
4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.2 4.9 61 Cuba
4.2 3.7 4.4 4.3 4.2 3.5 3.8 3.7 4.6 61 Latvia
4.2 4.3 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.7 61 Turkey
4.2 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2 64 Georgia
4.1 3.8 4.1 3.9 3.4 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.4 64 South Africa
4.1 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.8 66 Croatia
4.0 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 66 Montenegro
4.0 3.7 3.9 3.4 3.3 66 Slovakia
4.0 4.3 4.5 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.7 69 Ghana
3.9 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.9 69 Italy
3.9 3.9 4.3 4.8 5.2 6.2 6.2 5.2 69 Macedonia
3.9 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 69 Samoa
3.9 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.5 73 Brazil
3.8 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0 73 Tunisia
3.8 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 75 China
3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.5 75 Romania
3.6 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 77 Gambia
3.5 3.2 2.9 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.5 77 Lesotho
3.5 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.4 77 Vanuatu
3.5 3.6 3.2 2.9 3.1 80 Colombia
3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 80 El Salvador
3.4 3.6 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.2 80 Greece
3.4 3.5 3.8 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 80 Morocco
3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.7 80 Peru
3.4 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.4 80 Thailand
3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.2 – Grenada
3.4 3.5 86 Bulgaria
3.3 3.6 3.8 3.6 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.0 86 Jamaica
3.3 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.8 4.0 86 Panama
3.3 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.0 86 Serbia[25]
3.3 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.3 86 Sri Lanka
3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.7 91 Bosnia and Herzegovina
3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.3 91 Liberia
3.2 3.3 3.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 91 Trinidad and Tobago
3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.9 91 Zambia
3.2 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6
Rank Country Index 2011 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 95 Albania
3.1 3.3 3.2 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 95 India
3.1 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 95 Kiribati
3.1 3.2 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.7 95 Swaziland
3.1 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.7 95 Tonga
3.1 3.0 3.0 2.4 1.7 100 Argentina
3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.8 100 Benin
3.0 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.9 3.2 100 Burkina Faso
3.0 3.1 3.6 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.4 100 Djibouti
3.0 3.2 3.0 2.9 100 Gabon
3.0 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.3 100 Indonesia
3.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 100 Madagascar
3.0 2.6 3.4 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.6 1.7 100 Malawi
3.0 3.4 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 100 Mexico
3.0 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 100 São Tomé and Príncipe
3.0 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 100 Suriname
3.0 100 Tanzania
3.0 2.7 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.7 112 Algeria
2.9 2.9 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.6 112 Egypt
2.9 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.4 112 Kosovo
2.9 2.8 112 Moldova
2.9 2.9 3.3 2.9 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.3 2.4 2.1 112 Senegal
2.9 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.1 112 Vietnam
2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4 – Belize
2.9 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.8 4.5 118 Bolivia
2.8 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.2 118 Mali
2.8 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.0 120 Bangladesh
2.7 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 120 Ecuador
2.7 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 120 Ethiopia
2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.5 3.5 120 Guatemala
2.7 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.5 120 Iran
2.7 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0 120 Kazakhstan
2.7 2.9 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.3 120 Mongolia
2.7 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 120 Mozambique
2.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 120 Solomon Islands
2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 129 Armenia
2.6 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.0 129 Dominican Republic
2.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.5 129 Honduras
2.6 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7 129 Philippines
2.6 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 129 Syria
2.6 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.4 3.4 134 Cameroon
2.5 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.2 134 Eritrea
2.5 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.6 134 Guyana
2.5 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 134 Lebanon
2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.1 2.7 3.0 134 Maldives
2.5 2.3 2.8 3.3 134 Nicaragua
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.5 134 Niger
2.5 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.2 134 Pakistan
2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.6 134 Sierra Leone
2.5 2.4 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.2 143 Azerbaijan
2.4 2.4 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.0 143 Belarus
2.4 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.6 3.3 4.2 4.8 143 Comoros
2.4 2.1 2.5 2.6 143 Mauritania
2.4 2.3 2.8 2.6 3.1 143 Nigeria
2.4 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.6 143 Russia
2.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.7 143 Timor-Leste
2.4 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.6 143 Togo
2.4 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.4 143 Uganda
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.1 152 Tajikistan
2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 152 Ukraine
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.4 154 Central African Republic
2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.4 154 Republic of the Congo
2.2 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 154 Côte d'Ivoire
2.2 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.7 154 Guinea-Bissau
2.2 2.1 1.9 2.2 154 Kenya
2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 154 Laos
2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.6 3.3 154 Nepal
2.2 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.8 154 Papua New Guinea
2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.1 154 Paraguay
2.2 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.7 154 Zimbabwe
2.2 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7 164 Cambodia
2.1 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.2 164 Guinea
2.1 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.9 164 Kyrgyzstan
2.1 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 164 Yemen
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.4 168 Angola
2.0 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 168 Chad
2.0 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.7 168 Democratic Republic of the Congo
2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 168 Libya
2.0 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.1 172 Burundi
1.9 1.8 1.9 2.5 2.4 2.3 172 Equatorial Guinea
1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.9 172 Venezuela
1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 175 Haiti
1.8 2.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.5 2.2 175 Iraq
1.8 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.2 177 Sudan
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 177 Turkmenistan
1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.0 177 Uzbekistan
1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.9 180 Afghanistan
1.5 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.5 180 Myanmar
1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 182 North Korea
1.0 182 Somalia
1.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 2.1 [edit] References
- ^ Transparency International (2011). "Corruption Perceptions Index". Transparency International. Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi. Retrieved 1 December 2011.
- ^ a b CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 2
- ^ Transparency International (2010). "Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: In detail". Transparency International. Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/in_detail. Retrieved 24 August 2011.
- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions: TI Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI 2005)". http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2005_faq.html. Retrieved 2005-11-22.
- ^ CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 1
- ^ Transparency International (2010). Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: Sources of information (Report). Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/content/download/55815/891318/CPI2010_sources_EN.pdf. Retrieved 24 Aug 2011.
- ^ CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 7
- ^ a b Transparency International (2010). "Frequently asked questions (FAQs)". Corruption Perceptions Index 2010. Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/faqs. Retrieved 24 August 2011.
- ^ Wilhelm, Paul G. (2002). "International Validation of the Corruption Perceptions Index: Implications for Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship Education". Journal of Business Ethics (Springer Netherlands) 35 (3): 177–89. doi:10.1023/A:1013882225402.
- ^ Galtung, Fredrik (2006). "Measuring the Immeasurable: Boundaries and Functions of (Macro) Corruption Indices," in Measuring Corruption, Charles Sampford, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung, Eds. (Ashgate): 101-130. The author, a former Transparency International researcher and pioneer in the development of the Bribe Payers Index (BPI), addresses several criticisms of the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). He argues that the CPI should be radically revised and complemented by additional indicators.
- ^ Sik, Endre (2002). "The Bad, the Worse and the Worst: Guesstimating the Level of Corruption," in Political Corruption in Transition: A Skeptic's Handbook, Stephen Kotkin and Andras Sajo, Eds. (Budapest: Central European University Press): 91-113.
- ^ "The Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators". OECD. http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,2340,en_2649_33935_37081881_1_1_1_1,00.html.
- ^ a b "Bangladesh's economists question corruption perception index". The HINDU News Update Service. 2007-09-27. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200709270921.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-28.
- ^ "Hey Experts: Stop Abusing the CPI". Global Integrity. http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2009/02/hey-experts-stop-abusing-corruption.html.
- ^ "TI's Index: Local Chapter Not Having It". Global Integrity. http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/09/tis-index-local-chapter-not-having-it.html.
- ^ "CPI: Methodology FAQ". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008/faq#interpreting4.
- ^ "CPI 2011 table". Transparency Internation. http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results. Retrieved 2011-12-05.
- ^ "CPI 2010 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results. Retrieved 2010-10-26.
- ^ "CPI 2009 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table. Retrieved 2009-11-18.
- ^ "CPI 2008 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table. Retrieved 2008-12-17.
- ^ "CPI 2007 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2007/cpi_2007/cpi_2007_table. Retrieved 2007-10-01.
- ^ "CPI 2006 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/cpi_2006/cpi_table. Retrieved 2006-11-17.
- ^ "CPI 2005 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2005/cpi_2005#cpi. Retrieved 2007-12-03.
- ^ "CPI 2004 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2004. Retrieved 2007-12-03.
- ^ The years 2002–2005 show data for Serbia and Montenegro
- Transparency International (2010). Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: Long methodological brief (Report). Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/content/download/55903/892623/CPI2010_long_methodology_En.pdf. Retrieved 24 Aug 2011.
[edit] External links
- Official site
- Interactive world map of the Corruption Perception Index: 2000-2008
- A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption critiques the CPI and similar indices
- Global Integrity Index
[show]
[show]
The US is barely in the yellow. Way to go US.
The Gandhicam Project
Gandhicam is a free application which uses your phone's 3G or WiFi connection to automatically wirelessly upload images, sound and video recorded by your device.
Originally motivated by reports of police illegally confiscating or destroying people's pictures and video, it also has applications in personal safety, whistleblowing, undercover and warzone reporting or even just saving space on your device's built-in storage.
Gandhicam applications for your device | Recent uploads | Contact the Gandhicam Project
People are working on technology for documenting police abuse.
