at. the pentagon it's a place where u.s. military brass make decisions about war but the pentagon is about to ramp up a different type of battle this time of p.r. push what's behind this move we'll explain in just a minute. we live in a society that loves to update posts and tweets on social media but should you be required to hand over your social media information to your boss or your college get ready for snow bought a new bill in congress designed to protect your social media privacy. and ladies are you willing to go topless one just ahead will explored naked activism and why it's not a popular form of activism here in the u.s. . good afternoon it's friday february eighth for him in washington d.c.

i'm meghan lopez and you're watching r.t. . the face of war is changing that much we've known for quite some time as a result we've watched the pentagon work to stay ahead of these changes multibillion dollar aircraft carriers an f. sixteen s are making their way for drones and cyber innovation wars are no longer being waged strictly between countries and the enemy is not always clear for decades now the pentagon has used information campaigns in order to sway global opinions but now it's ramping up that effort in a massive way the inform and influence activities department of the army is tasked with informing the american public of military ongoing and promoting u.s. ideals abroad or as a manual puts it victory depends on a commander's ability to shape sway and alter foreign audience perceptions and ultimately behavior expression in the areas of operations commanders rely on eye a planning and employing information related capabilities to unify perceptions and

support effects to attain their desired end state so are we winning this war of words both at home and abroad well joining me to discuss this is r t correspondent sharp enough hey there on a stasia first off do you want to go ahead and try to explain a little bit more into detail what this i as a manual says and why it's so different than before. well this is a quiet curious piece of paper that the pentagon has released quite convoluted it's called the informant influence timothy's and what's curious about it is this is basically an attempt from the by the pentagon from you know of focusing on boots on the ground to really switching its focus even more on to manipulating the minds in the ground when the pentagon is conducting its military operations abroad and i have to say this manual is quite convoluted in the sense of you know some of the wording is such as focusing on planning integration and synchronization of designated information related capabilities so i'm sure whoever is going to be

attempting to follow this manual might be in need of translators to figure out exactly what this means but what we do know of course is that the pentagon basically is vamping up its p.r. game they want to make sure they're not just trying to physically win wars but also hopefully be liked on the ground where these these wars are being fought but on a saucy of these types of information campaigns have been going on for decades now so so what's so different about this one. well what's different about this one megan is that basically this is you know the first time in a long time if ever where we're seeing the pentagon release basically a brochure that is calling for the u.s. military to focus on the basically public relations abroad this element of it where basically the pentagon wants the military not just focus on the way the operations are on the ground are conducted but essentially making sure that both americans here at home and foreigners abroad in the countries where the wars are being fought

are are clued in the best way to describe it is basically the u.s. military will now also have to play an important role in tempting to inform and influence the people watching what exactly the pentagon is up to so on a saucy let's go ahead and talk about that because you did mention that they're both trying to inform as well as influence now obviously there's a distinct difference between the american public and foreigners and the types of information that they're going to disseminate between the two groups what is the goal for the rest of the world when it comes to influencing how are we planning on doing that and is the difference between informing and influencing really that different. well let you know i think you're right there is quite a distinct difference because to me personally the term inform has a much more positive ring to it than influence because you know inform is what they're applying to our us citizen is basically trying to deliver information to americans about the wars that the u.s. is fighting we're going to have to wait and see exactly how this changes from the

usual format really of the copy paste of press releases that we see for one coming from the mainstream corporate media to americans when it comes to the way the united states is fighting its wars abroad and when it comes to the term influence obviously this is something that's much more of a negative meaning to it in terms of ok we're going to go down there and not only are we going to fight these wars but we're also going to make sure that we put pressure of sorts of people on locals and try to influence their way of thinking in terms of how they react to american boots being on their territory now and stasia part of the stated reasons the military is revamping this program is because of the belief that the u.s. military has the losing the propaganda war in afghanistan and that's of course thanks to the taliban's use of national messaging so how is the taliban really outsmarting us in this instance and how can we really be doing better. well you know one of the major concerns that critics have been talking about is the reason

that u.s. soldiers are being outsmarted on the ground is just due to a lack of basic knowledge of culture and local tradition and language even and you know in terms of the losing the propaganda war of course this is something that's been a major concern and something that the u.s. has been criticized for largely because of the failures iraq and afghanistan going on for so long you know the latest examples are of course the green on blue attacks where allied afghan forces on the ground would basically turn their backs on u.s. soldiers because of this discontent in the way u.s. soldiers have been acting on the ground because of the length of the war being fought and really losing. any sort of kind of positive hope in terms of the the war is wrapping up so how the u.s. is going to outsmart the locals will have to wait and see hopefully this manual will help them out somehow hopefully to help them out somehow and help a little more transparency to administration that we've been wanting to see more

transparency out of expression considering the the drone can it campaigns that have been coming out in the recent obama administration releases as far as that goes r.t. correspondent on the stasi a church joining us from new york thank you. well all this week we've been discussing the legality of drones and the new developments coming out of the justice department detailing the use of drones in the attacks of u.s. citizens abroad we also know that drone use within u.s. borders is increasing dramatically and it's not just the military using them the map you are looking at here is made from data released from the federal aviation administration after a freedom of information request was sent out by the electronic frontier foundation it shows locations of eighty one public entities that have applied for f.a.a. drone authorizations and includes organizations such as law enforcement agencies sheriff's departments colleges and even one indian travel agency so obviously

drones are becoming more prevalent but on the same day that the obama administration released the drone memo that has stirred up so much conversation a small virginia city charlottesville that is passed a resolution banning the use of drones against its forty three thousand residents for two years the resolution which was brought on by peace activist david swanson called on the state of virginia and the entire country to follow its example the charlottesville resolution says quote the federal government and commonwealth of virginia has thus far failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the u.s. and police departments throughout the country that country have begun implementing drone technology absence of any guidance or guidelines from law makers now this resolution is mostly seen as symbolic after all the city does not plan on getting rid of the aircrafts that have already been leased out nor does it have the power to prevent federal use of drones in its airspace but it is proof that one

small town is willing to take a stance on new avi's until tough regulations in this area have been agreed upon already lawmakers in ten other states have started to draw up their own legislation . it's based on charlotte spills resolution but just goes to show that this symbolic action can actually to some real change. now when you meet someone in a bar or as a bookstore or at a seminar wherever you happen to be chances are the first thing that you do before you contact them is try to find out a little bit more about them and the best place to do that of course is the internet it is after all the age of information now a simple google search can reveal a lot of information about a person's life for instance if you search social media sites like facebook linked in twitter and my space if you're still using that you can find out pretty easily a person's age gender and marital status you might also be able to discover

a person's sexual preference their political and religious affiliations and even their family and current or previous addresses don't believe me try looking out on its dot com and check yourself on them now all of this could be very important if you're trying to get a job or a company with conservative values is not likely to hire someone that doesn't have fear to their political and religious standards even your sexual preference could get in the way luckily we have the right to control our privacy depending on how you limit what outsiders can see you can even make your profile and visible but if an employer asks for your log in information into your facebook or other accounts as they can and have in the past then the gig is up so to speak well three law makers are working to change that and actually protect your internet privacy congressman eliot engel and michael grimm along with congresswoman jan schakowsky have reintroduced a bill called the social networking online protection act or that prevents

employers schools and universities from forcing people to give their social networking passwords to them so is this the first step in protecting online freedom well tim carr is a senior director and strategy yet for effect. joins me now to answer that question and their town given all this stuff but pepper insists the legislation that we're snaking their way through congress recently i think a lot of people are having serious criticisms about congress's willingness to defend internet privacy how likely is it that this legislation is going to be passed well the person. that they tried to get this through. well in congress expired before it was passed so they're reintroducing it again in the new congress now it seems to me like a no brainer right why should an employer be allowed to ask for your online address and your logon and look at your social media accounts i mean it's it's sort of like

having an employer or prospective employer follow you around over the weekend to see what you're doing you know on saturday and sunday it's a there's a there's a there's some serious issues here so i think that if it gets if there's enough public pressure in support of this legislation there's a good chance that congress may take it seriously they have a lot on their agenda as you as you know. but this is something that if we continue to hear about these cases of prospective employers we've asked to hand over this information that there could be enough uproar in the media amongst activists amongst average citizens that congress will take action on this so ten i have to ask you what what is the reasoning that they could possibly give to to keep something like this all of a to allow it after all. i can't imagine what their reason i mean it's become a standard out is that when you are applying for a job that your prospective employer will check out your facebook account they will

check out your twitter stream they will google you and i think that this goes a little beyond the pale i mean there really is the all privacy i mean there's there are two issues here there is the privacy issue that you've talked about and they shouldn't be allowed this but there's also an issue of free speech when your employers tell you that they want to get access to various account has a chilling effect and now you know we're all living in an age where most people communicate via these social networks and and we don't have the kind of first amendment protections. in social media that many people think that we have we're subject to their terms of service. polices like facebook can cut us off for any reason whatsoever it's in their own terms and now we have a situation where where prospective employers want to get access with information so so it's worth it really prickly when it comes to first amendment protections free speech protections and we need our members of congress to side with average

speakers and social media and protect not only our rights to privacy but our rights to free speech now one of the congress people that have actually signed on to this and is one of the people that actually introduced it is congresswoman jan schakowsky as i mentioned i want to read how she describes this type of cyber encroachment she says asking for someone's password is like asking for a key to their home privacy is a basic right that all americans share and one that we should act to protect this legislation set boundaries no one seeking an educational or job opportunity should have to worry that their personal passport information will be required as a condition of their enrollment or their employment d.c.s. is an accurate description. we will go to knowledge. the beyond this legislation the justice department has been a look at this to see if there are existing laws that would make this kind of snooping illegal and that is the problem again is that the dividing line between

your personal and professional lives is breaking down increasingly in the arab social media and employers and then not only are they asking to look at this information but oftentimes when people are employed they're asked to sign a non disparagement rule that would say that you're not going to say anything disparaging about your employer and social media and the look at so so again it raises some really really deeply concerning free speech issues and we're hopeful that legislation like this will be taken seriously now time there's also a big difference to point out and the difference is you know obviously somebody can google you you can find pictures you can find whatever whatever you put out there you know if you leave it to have a type of digital footprint but the real difference between being able to google somebody and being able to log into their personal account where they've had interactions that are trying to they're trying to keep private is obviously a huge difference so are you advocating are others advocating that should they shouldn't be able to look you up at all when it comes to your social networking

sites or that they shouldn't just be able to look at your personal information. course it would be impossible to call them anybody and the employer is going to groom you and i would that since it would be scary to imagine a law that would prevent anybody including an employer from googling someone but when you when you ask for someone to hand over their password information their log in information that's when you cross a clear line where we can set a legal standard that would prevent that from happening and you can create a vehicle by which prospective employers and employers can file complaints against against an employer who decides to cross that line now obviously like legislations were passed in california delaware illinois maryland michigan and new jersey in two thousand and twelve they've also been introduced in eight states and similar bills anyway so if the federal government if congress doesn't pass that should we expect

states to kind of find their own way to deal with this tiger privacy and protuberant well there's always the question of proof that. they certainly can and have done this but there are instances where this kind of snooping goes across state lines and that may make it a federal issue which would then go before congress so i think in things like this it's always preferable to have a federal role that protects interstate communications in this case. and so if we could see something like this moving in congress it would be preferable to trying to pass these piecemeal states as the tim carney senior director of strategy to free press thank you so much for joining us welcome. the internet is certainly one form of expression so as tom was protesting did you know that it is legal in all the three states for women to protest topless it is not considered a form of indecent exposure those states where it is illegal are you tall indiana

and tennessee many females in europe have actually found it to be an effective form of protest or attention grabbing at the very least so should american women take off their tops to take on an issue that they care about laura harshness of the resident donna back question to the big. new york city it's legal for ladies to protest topless so where are the boobies this week let's talk about that part of the body even though it's legal it's still private. but don't you think that would draw a lot of attention to the cause yeah but then again you know the trucks are all growed sometimes too but it attracts you there. i would get all of this is would

you ever consider protesting topless. a reason yeah what would be the reason. you would go topless for that yeah what about something like if you're protesting obama's drone program then no that's not appropriate now keep them inside yeah so when would be it appropriate to whip them out as cancer research breast cancer or something related to breasts yes i don't think it's safe why not a lot of weirdos out here so if they take off your job you're going to have or they want i mean freedom of speech or freedom or whatever but there's just a lot of nuts out here so i'd be careful would you do it well maybe you are not but do you think french girls would do it more often than american girls i think so why is that what's wrong with a kind of crazy or do you think that americans are more uptight when it comes to topless and sexuality yes yes i do think that more uptight it would be

a way to get he was attention but i personally wouldn't do it maybe someone knows and i mean do you think it would be a good thing to bring that attention to a cause that way. not really if private is going to bring one kind of attention to somebody i don't think you really get your message out if you're out topless but people are stupid they see blooms and whatever message is a tad to do it no listen you have a point i prefer they go in the direction of freedom as opposed to restriction. that feeling i have which will resign do this is because we i think we are going in the more the ruction of being restrictions restricted and i want to kind of fight that's why i come out with this kind of so do you think that it would be little a cause or help because. oh i don't know if we'll do it much it's will bring more awareness i guess people will look so isn't that what protesting is all about. let them all lady the bottom line is going topless is a sure fire way to bring attention to your cause so ladies you might want to

consider that the next time you suit up for your big rally. no the us is a nation of democracy and free expression but when it comes to sexuality why are we so squirmy this week the organizers of the fifty fifth annual grammy awards sent out a letter to attendance in the wardrobe advisory there wrote quote please be sure that female but ox and female breasts are adequately covered func costumes are problematic please avoid exposing bare fleshy under curves and of the bach and the bach crack bear sized or under curvature of the breast is also problematic it goes on into much more detail as to what attendants can and cannot wear but in this time

where entire shows are dedicated to fashion forward wardrobes the stars show off on the red carpet isn't this part of the free expression isn't this stopping free expression this new ban if the actors and actresses decide to add here to that policy chances are we won't be seeing alphas like this on sunday but one woman isn't afraid to go topless to express her point of view wholly voce says and her alter ego harvey of on toast is one of new york's topless personas she has appeared at book signings inside of churches and courthouses on the staten island ferry movie premieres and even and front of schools her methods are abrasive and her career in her message is clear women shouldn't be afraid of showing off who they are physically and mentally holly joins me now to expand on that message hey there holly so obviously there are so many different types of expression why is this one so important to you. well it actually came about as

a offshoot of what i was doing i was i'm a photographer and i've been shooting a lot of a certain group of drag people that i found really interesting is an artist and this character harvey. just developed out of that and then when i was doing that i i found out somehow that it was legal to be topless in new york state so i thought well that's cool i can go out in promote me and these other artists who work in nightclubs in the city. as an artist you know as a character i made up but then i started getting arrested i've been arrested over ten times i've been involuntarily hospitalized once for six days you know just for doing something that's legal because you know the police force was not adequately educated on this i don't think and also the public didn't really know specially

when i started about two years ago i've done this for about two years countless i mean just like all the time i've done it in the bronx and i'd like to say earlier some gentleman said there's a lot of crazy people out there and that might frighten people off and that's very common to think that but truthfully what happens is the only time i've really been attacked was by a mother with her daughter right next to or outside of a school i don't see i don't have to bring out a lot of some of that interaction outside the school the school was in the bronx it's p.s. twenty let's go ahead and play some of that at that video and i will come out and talk about it. almost sure you would meet me. here booker but i was not i know i know you from plays and you are big and kind and i guess i can do we wait ok i do what i don't. want to do i know but it's really going to be good you need it. from.

now obviously people were visibly upset about you protesting in front of a school now we know that this type of expression is legal but is it moral is it appropriate given the setting. well first of all i don't ever really call what i do protest or activism because i'm really an artist and i've had to by default get into this because of what's happened to me and the thing i've done i've done this so much that i really have a good handle on what really disturbs people and the number one thing is with everyone is that dresser changer is for children and i just find that really. no one's ever going to convince me that breasts are harmful for children i just can't believe it i think it's really just it's like a hidden value that people have and they react to it without even really thinking and because they are really exposed to female breasts in public where it's legal

they just do whatever they naturally have like had in the back of their minds forever being trained by some sort of social value system that it's it's bad for children and i just find that really holly obviously you have no problem burying your breasts to the world but a lot of women simply don't feel comfortable going topless theater or religious issue or a self image issue if their overall message is that toplessness shouldn't be a big deal and should be accepted aren't you kind of detracting from the message by by making a big deal out of it by going in and showing yourself out in many places why not just go and be topless and go on with your day. well. the truth be told is i actually don't feel comfortable doing this it's very stressful for me and i get a lot of i get called names people are often just really rude to me and very very

you know they can be very nasty and and i myself i'm not a beautiful woman. so called i get called an exhibitionist to live in and being the kind of person i am it's just sort of ludicrous thinking i'm an exhibitionist when it's just i'm going to get a lot of trouble for doing this because i'm not beautiful and. there's no way anyone does this and actually feels good about doing it it's very stressful there's another young lady in the in the city who does it more ramona santa reli who is responsible for the ruling in one thousand nine hundred two none of these people feel comfortable doing it but they just believe that it's just really ridiculous that breasts are harmful to children so they do something right and that is part of what i'm doing quite an interesting story and that's really interesting and i think that somebody that has bared her breasts all over new york and still has trouble dealing at art.