Police line streets in downtown Tampa as the March on the RNC protest turns a corner on Monday. Though conditions were less rainy than initially forecast, the turnout was fairly low, with protesters numbering fewer than one thousand people. (John Brecher / NBC News)

By Bob Sullivan

 You might not hear the phrase "First Amendment Zone" during the next two weeks, but protesters at the Democratic and Republican national conventions will be put in their respective places. High-tech gadgets, ATVs, temporary city ordinances and even a tank will be used to control dissenters, part of a $100 million effort to keep the peace in both Tampa and Charlotte.

Messy, sometimes violent protests -- and local efforts to stop them -- are hardly new to nominating conventions.  The cat-and-mouse game between protesters and local authorities is renewed every four years, with so-called "free speech zones" or "First Amendment zones" playing a starring role at four recent  conventions.  Police corral protesters into small areas, often at a safe distance from the conventions -- and more critically, at a safe distance from most TV cameras.  In Boston in 2004, protesters in First Amendment Zones were surrounded by concrete walls; in New York, police circled protesters with police tape, creating "ad hoc free speech zones."

---

Legal challenges and a general distaste for the phrase "First Amendment zone" -- isn't all of America a First Amendment zone? -- have led to a softening of these strategies. Instead, officials in Tampa, Fla., and Charlotte, N.C., have replaced them with "parade routes," which give protesters a chance to march near the convention facilities, but not as close as some would like, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Some protest groups have concerns. ... People want to be right in front of the arena," said Baylor Johnson, advocacy coordinator for the ACLU of Florida. "That may be an area where we see some tension."

Tension has already ratcheted up as the Republican convention begins this week (the Democratic Party's convention is next week). Many protesters have gained practice and experience through Occupy events around the nation and are harder to control with standard police methods.  And many Occupy leaders are involved in convention protests. There's also concern that anarchists inspired by the Anonymous hacker movement might be planning violence.  Just days ago, there were reports that a pile of bricks and pipes was found on a rooftop near a fresh graffiti drawing of Guy Fawkes, the Anonymous symbol.

Balancing the demands of free speech against a city’s safety – and the potential damaging publicity that violence can bring -- is a high wire act. Congress gave Tampa and Charlotte $50 million each to plan for the violence. In Tampa, the city purchased an armored vehicle, police bicycles, all-terrain vehicles and put up nearly 100 high-tech surveillance cameras.  (An anti-camera group has posted details about the cameras here).

"The city is a police state, buildings are lined with fences and barricades, windows boarded up," said Jarid Hamil, spokesman for a group called March on the RNC, which is organizing Tampa protests.  “Helicopters constantly swarm the sky.  Meanwhile, the police parade their tank from time to time.”

Johnson, of the ACLU, was not quite as pessimistic about the GOP convention in Tampa.  He said his organization has held regular meetings with local officials in the months leading up to the event and feels they have heard members’ pleas to avoid unnecessary crackdowns on free speech.

"We have been preparing for over a year to make sure everyone knows their rights and that those rights are protected during the conventions," Johnson said. "We've had a relationship of mutual respect. We don't agree with everything they are doing, but we believe they have heard us. ... At this point, it's more an issue of how the rules are applied."

Johnson's big concern, he said, is that in the heat of protest, rules which seem neutral end up being applied in draconian ways "and things get out of control."

Parade routes are central to crowd control this time around, and seem a vast improvement on Free Speech Zones.  In Charlotte, there's a 1.2 mile route that allows protesters to march within two blocks of Time Warner Arena.  In Tampa, protesters can get one block from the convention site, but their route is only 0.7 miles and avoids the downtown area, steering marchers through a largely industrial area.

Hamil said his group plans to play by the rules and has obtained a permit for its march.

Rules limiting protesters go far beyond parade routes, however. In Tampa, much of the city has been designated an "event zone" by city ordinance, says Johnson, a designation that brings with it a series of restrictions.  By his reading, the law prohibits masks, puppets and even balloons.

"Lots of things you would normally see at a political demonstration aren't allowed," he said. Tampa police spokeswoman Andrea Davis told the Tampa Tribune that puppets, long a feature of political protest, have been used to conceal weapons.

Ironically, city ordinances cannot trump Florida state handgun laws, so those with the proper permits will be allowed to carry concealed handguns into the event zone.

Within the event zone is a more tightly secure Secret Service zone, there to protect the safety of key Republican officials. It also keeps protesters from getting anywhere near GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

In Charlotte, the city has passed an "extraordinary event ordinance," according to local ACLU director Christopher Brook. The city manager can declare an “extraordinary event,” he said, and new police powers immediately kick in.

"(The declaration) makes it illegal for someone to carry pepper spray with intent to disturb the peace, makes it illegal to wear a scarf to disguise their identity. ... It places a lot of focus on police officers being able to divine what someone's intent is," Brook said. "That's an awful lot of power for the city manager to have."

Brook also praised local officials for meeting with the ACLU and other civil liberty groups, and said he was generally hopeful that things would go smoothly in Charlotte.

"The parade route they OK'd is actually pretty good. It gets close to a lot of the key areas," he said. Charlotte officials have also said that, in addition to the parade route, protesters will be welcome on city sidewalks.  "We don't see eye to eye on everything, but there has been an open door both ways."

Both Johnson and Brook say their greatest concern is that civil liberty restrictions could remain even after the conventions are over. Brook wonders when the next "extraordinary event" will be declared; Johnson worries about the surveillance cameras.

"It is for us very troubling to the see massive expansion of surveillance technology, especially around a political event," Johnson said. "Because these technologies historically are put in place for one purpose, but there ends up being mission creep."

Already, the Tampa ACLU has begun distributing 15,000 "First Amendment Toolkit" pamphlets, and has set up a mobile resource center within the event zone, along the parade route. Volunteers will provide assistance to protesters with First Amendment questions, and will provide resources for legal aid. 

Despite all the preparation, he does expect some clashes as protesters try to spoil the perfect pictures that politicians try to stage for TV cameras.

“We've seen in past conventions that there have mass arrests, people having their permits to demonstrate revoked, people feeling that they weren't made aware of their rights, or cameras taken away from them,” he said. “What we're going to be doing in Tampa is making sure people are aware of their rights.”

Brooks expects tension, too, but says viewers around the country should try to keep any angry images in perspective.

"I know these things can look rough and tumble on television,” he said. “Perhaps some individuals have different ideas, and are considering violence. Nobody endorses that. But it's the most outlandish behavior that gets focused on. The vast majority of folks are going to (protest) so because they are passionate (and) politically engaged and are going to do so in a nonviolent fashion. The ability to do that is central to our American democracy."

* Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
* Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.

 

Yankee fans root for a first-place team and usually watch their heroes win when they visit the new Yankee Stadium in New York. But fans of the Bronx Bombers have recently lost something too, something many sports fans around the country will probably lose soon: the right to sue the team for damages if there's a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, another team can claim victory every time the Yankees take the field -- tort reform advocates.

In July, Yankee Stadium became the first sports facility to earn the coveted federal "Safety Act" designation. That means the facility has passed a battery of tests and won approval from the Department of Homeland Security, so the Yankees have been granted a wide-ranging immunity from future lawsuits that might stem from terrorist attacks.

---

Dozens of defense companies have been named to the Safety Act approved list since DHS started handing out the designation in 2004. But Yankees Stadium is the first of what is expected to be many sports venues whose operators will then be immune from standard lawsuits that might be filed by future victims of terrorist attacks. (The National Football League was placed on the Safety Act list in 2008, but the designation was vague and probably only applies to the Super Bowl, experts say.)

 

Supporters say the Safety Act gives strong incentives for firms to raise their security standards, and encourages innovation. Opponents say it unfairly terminates a basic consumer right, makes people less safe and serves as an under-the-radar version of tort reform. As evidence, opponents point out that the Safety Act framework is being copied for many other legislative initiatives, including the failed effort to pass a comprehensive Cybersecurity Bill this year.

It's the mother of all liability waivers, says George Washington University law Professor Ellen Zavian, an expert in sports law. But the question is, do fans know about it?

"There's waivers on ticket stubs … but I haven't seen any waivers that state, 'Oh by the way  … we can waive (liability) for terrorism attacks.'" Zavian said. "How did this get under the radar? Are people really supportive of that? I think attendees should know what they are waiving when they enter a facility, and I don't think they do."

The Safety Act (SAFETY is actually an acronym for "Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies") was passed as part of the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. And that's part of the problem, argues John Bowman, director of federal relations for the American Association for Justice.

"Clearly this was done in haste after 9/11," he said. "It was a fear-driven time. There was dramatic tort reform. It's fair to say these tort reformers took advantage of that moment. ...We disagree with the way the law is structured. We think it's not very helpful for fans if something happened."

The law would clearly be helpful to the Yankees if something happened. A report by the European Organisation for Security, which is helping the European Union consider similar terrorism-related tort reform, says that $40 billion in private claims was paid out by insurers in the wake of 9/11, with billions more in claims still unsettled. The Safety Act would prevent many such lawsuits after a future 9/11-style attack.

'A marketing edge'
But the law does much more than offer the civil equivalent of a get-out-of-jail-free card, supporters argue. Bob Karl, who operates SafetyActConsultants.com and has helped dozens of companies achieve certification, says liability protection is absolutely essential for companies deploying newfangled anti-terrorism technologies. Companies are concerned that with each new gadget they deploy, they incur new liability, he said.

Karl gave the example of a company that had invented a new radioactivity detector for cargo containers on ships. Selling the detectors would be, initially, a tiny $10 million annual business for the multibillion-dollar company, but the firm feared that if something went wrong with its product, victims could sue for the entirety of the firm's value. It makes no sense for companies to take on risk like that, and the firm didn't start selling its detectors until it achieved Safety Act designation, he said. He declined to name the firm.

"It's very real concern, and Congress had that concern when it passed the law," he said.

With Safety Act protection, companies can afford to deploy unproven or newer technologies, knowing their risks are lower, he said. That makes everyone safer.

Also, he insisted, the Office of Safety Act Implementation, which grants the certification, has very high standards, and firms become safer merely by taking on the process.

"The fear is there would be some kind of double-secret handshake and they would just hand these things out. … Well, that's not how it happens," he said. Many applications take years before they achieve final approvals. "I had one application recently that was 5,000 pages long," Karl said.

Meanwhile, Safety Act designation can give smaller companies, "a marketing edge," he said. "It's kind of like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval."

But even Karl agrees that the Safety Act was "tort reform at a very high level." Safety Act designation makes it impossible to sue a company after a terrorist attack for standard negligence – a ticket-holder bringing in an explosive device in a purse that wasn’t detected during standard bag inspection by entrance guards, for instance. But it also grants a host of other legal rights. Victims who wish to pursue legal action after a terrorist attack can only do so in federal court; joint and several liability (in which any involved party can be liable for an entire disaster) is eliminated, which reduces firms' exposure; and there is a ban on punitive damages on interest accumulation related to any potential judgment. Victims cannot sue for negligence; the only way to pierce Safety Act immunity is to prove fraud during the application process, or actual malice by the company.

Another concern expressed by opponents is that the definition of a terrorist attack is left vague by the law – essentially, a terrorist attack is anything the Department of Homeland Security calls a terrorist attack, which could include domestic terrorism, such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 or even the recent Aurora, Colo., mass shooting.

One likely outcome of Safety Act protections could be lower insurance premiums for companies involved, thanks to caps on costs that could arise from a terrorist attack.

Bradley Shear, a civil litigation attorney and opponent of the Safety Act, said he didn't understand what was in it for fans.

"I think this is well intentioned, but can it equally protect businesses and the average consumer?" he said. "In return for the liability shield, what is the public getting? Are Yankees tickets going to be cheaper because they've been able to obtain Safety Act (designation)? Will the cost of a hot dog or a beer be any less?"

Or, as another opponent of the legislation said, has it just created a new consulting industry that earns millions helping companies navigate the Safety Act application process? A quick search of Google shows there is indeed a thriving industry in Safety Act consulting.

David McWhorter, a consultant at Catalyst Partners in Washington D.C., which helped the Yankees with its Safety Act application, said critics have a misunderstanding of the approval process. Most companies are forced to raise their insurance coverage by the Office of Safety Act implementation, he said, adding that he couldn’t think of a single case where firms were allowed to reduce their coverage. And insurance firms aren't yet offering security firms the equivalent of a "good driver discount," either.

In other words, they're not getting Safety Act coverage to save money today, he says. They do it because they become safer through the process, and because they want cost certainty.

"It's important for a facility to get a pre-emptive cap on liability," he said. "For any venue that has met the Safety Act standards, patrons can feel assured they are among the best of the best when comes to security. It’s a win-win for the public and for that venue."

McWhorter said when companies approach him for help with their application, he generally spends a lot of time consulting on how to improve the firm's security guard hiring and training processes. He also helps companies set up "red team" exercises -- mock attacks  -- to prepare them for the rigorous Homeland Security evaluation. 

"It's not inexpensive to provide security to a venue that holds 10,000 to 60,000 people," he said. "You have to consider hiring, training, exercises, cameras, alarms, mass notification systems, definition of the command structure, metal detectors, the auditing process, and so on." 

Sticking out like a sore thumb
Browsing the list of Safety Act designated technologies on the Department of Homeland Security's website, visitors see a list of both familiar and unfamiliar names: ADT Security, Unisys and Securitas are listed alongside Massachusetts-based Ahura Scientific, for example. Many of the approved technologies are what you might expect: In March, American Science & Engineering got approval for X-Ray inspection systems; the aforementioned Ahura – which recently changed its name to Thermo Scientific -- lists handheld devices that identify chemicals using "Raman spectroscopy."

On such a list, the Yankees stick out a bit like a sore thumb.

"New York Yankees d/b/a The New York Yankees Baseball Club provides The New York Yankees Security Program," the Safety Act office announcement says. "The Technology is a comprehensive integrated security system, which is comprised of physical and electronic security measures, tools and procedures designed to detect, deter, prevent, respond to and mitigate Acts of Terrorism at Yankee Stadium during Game Day, Non-Game Day (In-Season), Non-Season and Special Events."

One of these things is not like the other, complains Bowman.

“When you look at the law -- it's for makers and suppliers of technology," he said. "That was their intent, not to protect ballparks and give them a get-out-of-jail-free card, as long as they didn't lie ... during the approval process.”

The Yankees did not respond to a request for comment.

McWhorter says that sports venues are good candidates for Safety Act protection because they host major events that attract attention, and need incentives to go "above and beyond" standard levels of security.

"Yankee Stadium is not unlike the Cincinnati airport, the Stock Exchange, the NFL, or Super Bowl venues, all of which have received Safety Act protection," he said. "The regulations for the Safety Act are very clear that the (Department of Homeland Security) secretary has great flexibility in approving applications. Nevertheless, one criterion is, to paraphrase, 'To get Safety Act protection, you must demonstrate the need for Safety Act protection.'… The Safety Act incentivizes activities like vulnerability assessments and security upgrades, whereas without it some people might simply ignore threats in order to avoid any culpability."

Bowman said he didn't have a fundamental disagreement with the notion of encouraging invention of terrorism-fighting technologies, but feared that the Yankees designation proves the Safety Act is now casting a far wider net than originally intended. That's not a mistake, he thinks: Tort reformers try to gain more ground each time Congress takes up an industry issues or security issues, he said.

"We see this over and over in what we do. The first thing industry asks for are liability protections," he said, citing this year's cybersecurity bill as an example. "But if they are not accountable, they aren't responsible and no one is ultimately safe."

Karl, the Safety Act consultant, said he believes the Safety Act does make America safer, as all manner of security improvements are a standard part of the application process. He expects many more sports teams to apply -- and to receive -- Safety Act designation in the coming months and years, and he plans to pitch sports teams and facilities with his consulting services.

"The law is definitely working the way it's intended to," he said. "The Safety Act protects technologies that deter or respond to or mitigate a terrorist attack. … That makes us all safer."

* Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
* Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

 

In the ugly battle of Web users vs. insurance companies, a lot of blood was spilled this week.

We've known for a while that hell hath no fury like an Internet user scorned. But at the intersection of social media, consumer frustration, anxious lawyers and heavy-handed regulations you'll find a particularly tricky corner of the Web. Insurance firms, which have always been a magnet for complaints anyway, lie at precisely this crossroads.  

Increased competition has led insurers to employ high-profile marketing gimmicks, like geckos or touchdown dances, in an effort to become household names with friendly reputations. That means it's become necessary for them to establish a social media presence. Progressive's "Flo" character, for instance, has her own Facebook page, with hundreds of thousands of fans. But inviting social dialogue sometimes means inviting trouble, as Flo and her handlers found out the hard way this week.

---

Progressive encountered a Twitter revolt after the family of a woman killed in a car crash wrote a blog post criticizing the way the firm fought to avoid paying a claim. The post went viral, and the insurance giant then compounded its problems by spitting out automated tweets in response.

Experts who talked about the incident this week said Progressive fell into a trap that often catches large companies as they stumble around the social media world.

"The original response sounded genuine," said Jason Falls, a digital marketing consultant who helped health care firm Humana set up its social media program. "But the fact that they auto-responded the same statement to multiple people showed it was just a copy-and-paste job. More often than not, when that happens, it's not the technology that's to blame. You can blame it on the legal and compliance teams saying, 'You can say this and only this.' It makes you look cold and insensitive."

Both sides have willingly joined the insured-vs-insurers Internet fight. Insurance firms increasingly use the Web as a weapon against fraud, while consumers band together to demand better service, or to appeal denials of coverage. Both can claim victories. There are plenty of stories of insurance investigators who catch disability recipients bragging about completing triathlons on their Facebook pages or tweeting about a great trip to Paris while claiming depression. Meanwhile, earlier this month, a social media firestorm caused Aetna to back down and agree to cover colon cancer treatment costs for an Arizona patient who'd already exceeded his lifetime cap. A flurry of angry tweets really can make a big company reverse course.

'Shame on you'
Fall said he's used to seeing nasty comments pile up on insurance company blogs, Facebook pages and in Twitter feeds.

"It does make me cringe, but I also think it comes with the territory," he said.

It doesn't take long to find cringe-worthy comments on insurance company social media sites. Even days after the initial Progressive firestorm, comments left on Progressive's otherwise happy "Flo the Progressive Girl" Facebook page were dominated by vitriol: "Shame on you," says one. "Has Flo ever wondered why Progressive tries to get killers off the hook?" says another. Many writers called on the actress who plays Flo to quit.

Flo's hardly alone, however. When American Medical News did a survey of health insurance Twitter accounts last year, it found a never-ending stream of complaints:

*"Dear Cigna: How about, for the new year, you do something radical - like processing claims without 500 phone calls from me?"

* "Dear Humana, you've ruined my day. Worse, my wife's day. Way to CYA. I'm paying you to cover mine."

*"@Anthemhealth, so far u didn't send me my ID cards … kept me on hold for 25 mins and ur site isn't lettng me register. Nice service."

Insurance, necessarily, involves rejection. When you are in the business of frequently disappointing people, and making sure your rejections are lawsuit-proof, it's nearly impossible to run a free-spirited social media shop. Rachel Poor, who runs the social media marketing firm Thread Communications, said all heavily regulated industries face the Progressive dilemma.

"I think social media is still a sort of an enigma (to them). They all want to be there, they are told they should be there, but these companies are not used to people talking back to them in such a public forum," she said. "Ultimately, I think it will require insurance agencies to change the way they do business.”

Greg Matthews, a director at social media consulting agency WCG in Austin, said insurance companies often have to go into a Twitter or Facebook fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

"Particularly in health care or financial services, there are privacy-related issues that you just can't discuss," he said. For example, if a patient complains about an uncovered medical procedure, the insurance company can't publicly talk about the patient. "People want you to be transparent and authentic all the time, but you just can't. ... It can be terribly frustrating.”

Falls said companies he works with expect the occasional public flogging after turning on a Twitter account, and they manage to survive by planning ahead.

"The thing I've tried to do with any client opening up its customer service channels -- you have to have a crisis communications plan mixed with a customer service plan," he said.  "You have to anticipate what will happen. ... Companies that dive in without a plan of attack for those situations are finding it difficult."

No stiff upper lip?
Automatic and formulaic responses have gotten many companies through old-fashioned media crises, Falls said. For example, journalists are often tolerant of canned answers, he noted -- but they typically don't fly on social media. If a Twitter response doesn't sound like it's written by a real person in response to a real person, the company is likely going to take a hit to its reputation. On the other hand, when million-dollar settlements might be at stake, no insurance company lawyer is going to be comfortable with a social media employee free-lancing responses. So Falls suggests a middle path.

"You have to have a lawyer on staff who can be on call and help your social media team craft communications in crisis situations," he said. "When you have a big publicity problem, you have your legal team working hand-in-hand with PR. Why wouldn't you do the same thing in the social media world?"

In general, he recommends that firms post a detailed, formal response on a website, and instruct their social media writers to tweet or post links to it, while adding personal notes separately. 

There are challenges, however: Many lawyers and companies don't have the stiff upper lip needed to ride out a social media crisis.

"Any industry that's heavily regulated will always have a layer of legal and compliance teams that have to be trained, and have to buy in," he said. "It can be done with the right legal team. But if you have a team that constantly says ‘no,’ it'll never work."

Matthews said effective social media must also be fast, and that's often unfamiliar territory for insurance firms.

"It means really changing processes that companies use. Rather than convening the executive committee for two days to make a decision about things, boil it down to the two or three people who can actually make a decision in hours and not days," he said.

It also means knowing who the influencers are in certain topics ahead of time, and planning to engage those people immediately when a crisis hits.

"It's not that hard to know these days who are the folks likely to be influential in this conversation," Matthews said. "You know what the top 10 issues that you might face are, and you know who is likely to be the most influential when those stories break, the people who might take your side or be opposed. ... Ask yourself how do you engage them. What is the content you can bring to bear that articulates your position rather than letting the public run wild. You can never control the conversation, but you can make sure your side is heard."

Finally, and most important, companies have to actually deliver on their promises, perhaps in a way they never have before, Matthews said. If a Twitter user complains and is asked to call customer service by a social media worker, that customer service experience had better be positive, Matthews warns. Otherwise, the angry consumer will have heavy new ammunition for waging a social media war.

"It really helps you find your skeletons in the closet," he said. "You have to have a mindset that you are grateful your customers are telling you what you are doing wrong, and you have the opportunity a chance to fix it. I know a lot of companies, maybe most companies, don’t feel that way, but that’s the only way to be successful in social media.”

* Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
* Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

Senior citizens are used to getting good deals. Tell the truth: if you're aren't of AARP age, there have been times you wish you were -- when buying mass transit tickets, for example, or visiting America's national parks (one $10 fee gets you into any park, all year).  Plenty of restaurants and other retailers offer "senior days" and other deals.

But take checking accounts off the senior discount list. A new report by the Pew Center on the States warns(.pdf) that so-called senior checking accounts may not be a good deal at all. In fact, in some cases, senior accounts cost much more than a basic checking account.

---

At Bank of America, for instance, a senior account is far more expensive than a basic account. Here are the facts, from Bank of America's website.  The bank's “Advantage for Seniors” account costs $25 per month vs. a basic checking account fee of $14 per month. In both cases, consumers can earn a fee waiver, but here again, the senior account comes up short. Direct deposit of paychecks is one way, but that's often not available to seniors, Pew points out in its report. Basic checking users can also avoid fees by maintaining a $1,500 balance in their account; but seniors have to keep at least $5,000 in their account. Fall below $5,000 for even one day, and that's a $25 fee.

 

"If you have $5,000, and are happy to have it sit in this account, this can be a fine deal," said Susan Weinstock, director of Pew's Safe Checking Project. "But the question is: Is the consumer in an account that best suits their needs? The point of this (research) is that consumers need to understand the terms of their accounts."

Seniors who could comfortably park $2,000 or $3,000 -- but not more – in their checking accounts would save $300 apiece annually by steering clear of the senior account at Bank of America. And those with balances below $1,500 would still save $132 by picking a standard, basic account instead of the senior account.

The Advantage for Seniors account does offer a few perks, such as fee-free mini-statements from ATMs (they normally cost $1), but Pew concludes in its report that such perks aren’t worth the extra fees.

"Essentially, accounts of this type are a luxury account tailored for seniors, not necessarily an improvement on the basic checking package," Pew concluded.

Bank of America spokeswoman Betty Riess said that seniors have a variety of low-cost choices at  Bank of America, including its MyAccess product, which provides a fee waiver with any monthly direct deposit of $250 or more, including Social Security payments.

“The Advantage interest-bearing account is designed for customers who have higher balances with us, and the vast majority of seniors in that account do not pay a monthly maintenance fee on the account,” she said.  She added that the Advantage account offers one benefit that is quite handy for seniors – an early CD withdrawal without a penalty.

Senior accounts at other banks also offer some tricky choices, but not quite as tricky. At TD Bank, the "60 Plus" account costs $10 monthly(.pdf), more than the $3.99 basic checking account costs, the report found. But it only takes a $250 balance to earn a fee waiver in the TD senior account, a much more manageable threshold.

At BB&T, senior accounts cost $8 per month, and a $1,000 balance earns a fee waiver, a genuine discount compared to the $10 per month the firm charges for its basic "BB&T Bright Banking" account, which requires $1,500 for a fee waiver.

Of course, if your eyes have begun to glaze over at these various numbers, then you've heard the main lesson of the Pew report -- it's not easy to pick the right checking account under even the best of circumstances.  Add in a new set of variables, such as those associated with senior accounts, and you’ve got even more confusion. But seniors aren’t the only ones struggling with specialized checking account questions. A related Pew report released the same day looked at student/college checking accounts and found similar problems; some student accounts are inferior to basic accounts, and comparison shopping can be a real challenge.

"We looked at all these disclosures from banks, and 69 pages was the median length," Weinstock said.  "We're worried this is confusing for people ... for students, for seniors."

Pew is trying to get banks to adopt a simple disclosure format -- similar to nutrition labels on food items -- so consumers could more easily comparison shop and pick the account that's best for them.

Already, TD Bank, Chase and Citibank (since July 17) have voluntarily adopted Pew's fee box, she said. The nonprofit research group also is urging the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to make fee disclosure boxes mandatory.

“It would have the same effect as a nutrition label,” she said. “But until we get that kind of transparency ... it will be hard to make the right choice.”

An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the author of Pew's report.  NBC News regrets the error.

* Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
* Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

When the Olympic flame is doused on Sunday, we know the cheers will quiet, the athletes will move on and fans will go home. But will Big Brother stay behind?

Every Olympics host city goes through it: the Olympic hangover. When the athletes step off the medal podiums, the city must clean up, pay the bills and figure out how to monetize a series of shiny new venues. The most important decision, however, might seem much more subtle: What happens to all those new security cameras and other surveillance technologies that were installed for the Games? Privacy experts fret that, as with Athens, Beijing and Vancouver, the Olympics means a steep ratcheting up of security that never really gets ratcheted down.

---

"It would be a tragedy if the most visible legacy of the Games in London was a huge increase in the amount of surveillance people are subjected to in their everyday lives," said Nick Pickles, director of London-based Big Brother Watch.

Host cities tolerate massive shows of security that would otherwise be unimaginable. In London, which already has more CCTV security cameras than any other city in the world, 2,000 new cameras were installed in the Olympic Village, while nearly 2,000 more were installed around the city, according to Big Brother Watch. License plate recognition systems have been installed throughout London. There are even surface-to-air missiles atop apartment buildings and more military troops on the ground than Britain has in Afghanistan. An $877 million effort, it's been called the largest peacetime deployment of security forces in history, but the question remains: Will there be mission creep? How much of that infrastructure and the public’s newfound tolerance for being watched will remain after the Games are finished?

Earlier this year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation published an analysis of all recent Games and says the results are disheartening.  It should come as no surprise that the Beijing Summer Games were used as an excuse to install thousands of cameras that are still in operation, said the report’s author, Rebecca Bowe. But other cities have suffered similar fates, too.

"The Games bring a legacy that lives well beyond the prestige," Bowe said. "We've witnessed time and again, the security infrastructure lives on well beyond the Games."

Concrete concerns
The concerns aren't merely theoretical. Athens officials installed about 1,000 cameras for the 2004 Summer Games. In 2007, Greece amended its national data protection law to exempt the cameras; Greek privacy commissioner Dimitris Gourgourakis resigned over the incident. The cameras have since been used during protests following economic unrest there.

More Olympics coverage in London 2012: Hosting the Games

The Olympics has a long-running legacy as a massive security event, which long pre-dates post-9/11 terrorism concerns. It dates at least as far back as the Munich Summer Games of 1972, when a security breach contributed to the kidnapping of Israeli athletes from the Olympic Village; 11 were eventually murdered.  But even before that event, the Olympics were never free of international politics and the real possibility that some group might use them to violently make a point.

No one disputes the need for heightened security during the Games, but is the installation of security infrastructure, and the culture that comes with it, a one-way street? Can a security state be dismantled? Or are the Games a Trojan horse that allows those with a heavy-handed security agenda to gain the upper hand?

Olympic security plan transforms London into fortress

"The equipment has been bought and paid for. The real risk is they simply leave it in place and turn it over to local authorities, and by the back door, we have a huge increase in surveillance," Pickles said. "Government officials have made assurances that some of it is temporary, but they haven't said what."

Already, whiz-bang security technology in London has proven tempting to local authorities. Pickles pointed to minutes from a recent borough council meeting in Newham, just east of London, where officials openly expressed desire to buy Olympics surveillance technology after the Games end.

Alfredo Lopez, founder of the international privacy advocacy organization MayFirst/PeopleLink, said it's very difficult to reverse the Olympics security buildup.

"There is no way these guys are going to take down those cameras, especially with all the social unrest there," said Lopez, who is based in New York.

Lopez, a professed lover of Olympic sports, said the security issue threatens to squander any of the goodwill gained by the otherwise-peaceful international gathering.

Red Tape Chronicles on NBCNews.com

"I happen to believe, and I know this is corny, (that) the Olympics is one of the greatest things the human race does, so why do these bastards pervert it with their repressive attitudes?" he said. "How can you run a principal event of goodwill and friendship, then at same time, on top of buildings you have missiles? It's totally incongruous. It's very, very disturbing and contradictory to the Olympic spirit. It ruins the whole thing."

'It softens people up'
One fundamental problem of the Games is that they are used as an "obvious show of military capability," Lopez said, with host nations using the occasion the beat their chests about their powerful ability to respond to threats. But Pickles is worried about a much more subtle issue: Residents get used to the trade-off between privacy and heightened security practices, and their tolerance level is slowly raised, leading to fewer objections to police tactics.

"The danger is it softens people up to the next step," he said.

The next step is Brazil in 2016, where circumstances on the ground dictate what will almost inevitably be an even stronger implementation of security force and technology. (Privacy advocates are too pessimistic about the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, to use those games as a battleground.) An active battle between paramilitary police forces and organized crime means residents are used to compromised civil liberties, and even before the 2016 Games, Rio de Janeiro will host the World Cup in 2014. Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks suggest that U.S. government officials have encouraged use of additional surveillance tools by the Brazilian government, as well as a partnership with U.S. security agencies.

As a result, market research firm 6Wresearch predicts the market for security cameras will nearly quadruple, to $362 million, by 2016.

By then, Pickles warns, people have another element to worry about: increased sophistication of technologies like facial recognition. Londoners, for example, would almost certainly not tolerate a permanent military presence in the city. But as police gadgets get smaller and smarter, they also become less visible.

"It's getting more discreet, even as the processing power is getting more powerful," he said. "It's becoming much more clandestine, ... which means people won't object to it as much."

Looking to Vancouver
Brazil and London might be able to learn something from Vancouver's experience after the 2010 Winter Games. Western Canada has an active civil participation culture, and even before the Games began, Canada's privacy commissioner warned about mission creep in Olympics security plans.

"The right to privacy must be upheld, even during mega-events like the Olympic Games, where the threat to security is higher than usual," Commissioner Jennifer Stoddard said in a speech delivered before the Games calling for dismantling of surveillance technology after the Games. "Will the residents of Vancouver and the lower mainland wind up living surrounded by an array of surveillance systems that they neither want nor need?"

Partly as a result, most of the 900 video cameras installed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were removed after the Games. About 75 were left behind for use by the Vancouver police, said Adam Molnar, who is studying the Olympics security effect as part of his Ph.D. work at the University of Victoria.

"British Columbia civil liberties associations put pressure on the Vancouver Police Department, which was in negotiations to keep the cameras up," he said. Even some of the remaining cameras were turned off, only to be used in crisis situations, he said.

On the other hand, analysis of Vancouver's post-Olympics security hangover is muddied by the fact that in the spring of 2011, there were major riots after the Vancouver Canucks lost hockey’s Stanley Cup final. City officials have successfully turned to Twitter and other social media tools that deputized people to help identify criminals during the riots. Given the embarrassment over the riots, many residents were eager to help.

"That turns out to be an alternate route to (security) cameras everywhere," Molnar said.

The most lasting legacy of the Vancouver Games, Molnar said, was not police gadgetry, but rather reorganization of the police force into small, nimble anti-riot teams that share some characteristics with paramilitary teams.

"The extent that militarist ideal supplants community-based policing, that should concern people," he said. "And any time you have a deepening of integration between civilian and military police, like you have now in London, that's disturbing."

Molnar felt confident that Vancouver's security experience offered some hope to privacy advocates in London and Rio, however.

"You can look to Vancouver as a positive example of an active civil liberty and political community that tried to engage the government around privacy and surveillance issues, and that did earn some small victories," he said. "In many ways it's forced policing agencies to respond to public debate. ... There's certainly a need for informed civilian oversight."

'Mega-events'
But Bowe, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she's worried that the Olympics will continue to be abused as one of a list of "mega-events" that give officials permission to tighten the security screws until tremendous power is concentrated in small government forces.

"The march toward a militarized, urban future will continue apace unless people push back," she said. 

And Lopez sees little room for hope at the moment.

"My general worry as a human being is about the setting up of apparatus of police states in all of these places," he said.

Even those who have faith in the good intentions of their current government are being short-sighted, he warned.

"The (U.S.) and some of these places are not a police state now. But the problem is if the apparatus is set up, it could be easily be Nazified and turned on people. ... If there's a history to the world, it's that certain small, elite groups of people usurp and pervert the great works of the majority of humanity, like the Olympic Games, for nefarious and selfish purposes."

* Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
* Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter. 

It sounds like one of those crazy rumors you get in an e-mail from a friend: "Did you hear? They're going to tax the Internet!" Only this time, it's true.

The days of tax-free shopping are quickly drawing to a close for all except those willing to drive to places like Delaware or Oregon. A two-front assault on Web shoppers is in full force — Congress is considering legislation that would pave the way for states to force sales tax on point-and-click shoppers, and Amazon.com is making numerous one-off deals with individual states, where it will be collecting taxes no matter what Congress does. Together, these two developments make an Internet sales tax all but inevitable.

For years, brick-and-mortar stores were at an incredible disadvantage to online retailers that could offer tax-free shopping. If you are a fair-minded person, it's hard to muster an argument that this situation — in which online shoppers enjoy a 5 percent to 10 percent "discount" because they point and click instead of drive or walk — was anything but unfair. 

On the other hand, despite all the word games being played by all the interested parties — the Senate version of the legislation is called the "Marketplace Fairness Act" — there is only one way to describe why your online shopping bill is about to go up: a new tax.

---

The National Conference of State Legislatures says states stand to gain $23 billion in new revenue when online sales tax collection kicks in. That's $23 billion the states weren't collecting before, and $23 billion you weren't paying before. Texas and New York residents will pay about $1.8 billion more; Californians, $4.2 billion. That's real money.

To boil it down, Forrester Research says the average U.S. online shopper will soon spend $1,700 annually — so the changes will cost each one about $125 every year. 

That's $125 in new taxes you’ll be paying. It's $23 billion our state governments will have to spend that they currently don't have. Of course, very few are willing to say the "T" word out loud. George H.W. Bush learned that lesson for every future politician when his "no new taxes" pledge ended up defining his career. So you won’t hear supporters admitting it’s a tax.

"It's not a tax issue. It's a collection issue," David French of the National Retail Federation told me. He's senior vice president of government relations at the federation, which supports the legislation. French is right, strictly speaking. You probably know that consumers who don't pay sales tax when they buy a TV on Amazon.com are supposed to pay a "use tax" later to their own state governments. And you probably also know that almost no one does that. In the sparse data on use tax you'll find, you'll see a 2009 study that shows that 0.3 percent of California residents reported use tax on their income tax filing. Maine, by the way, wins the crown for most honest taxpayers, with 9.8 percent paying use tax that year. 

"I don't want to say they are breaking the law, but I will say they are avoiding application of the law," said French.

So strictly speaking, the states would simply be getting better at collecting that which they are already owed.

"Americans want to see that the taxes that are due are paid before anyone's taxes are increased," French said.

Inevitable
I'll invite you, readers, to come up with your own analogies, but here's mine: If tomorrow, every state in the nation hired a bunch of new state troopers and began giving out speeding tickets to everyone driving 56 mph in a 55-mph zone, I'd call that a new tax. When everyone has done something for years without sanction, it's no longer illegal. Suddenly enforcing an unenforced law is the same as passing a new law; suddenly enforcing an unenforced tax is a new tax.

It's a testament to our tortured relationship with governing that such a straightforward debate leads to such intense obfuscation. One Net sales tax supporter I spoke with on background started to say, "People agree that everyone should pay their fair share," but then caught himself, fearing he had just made an enormous verbal gaffe. Talking about "fair share" triggers an entirely different debate, he feared. One reason the U.S. is floundering is our inability to even speak clearly to one another, so laced with vitriol is our marketplace of ideas.

So I'll speak plainly: It's a new tax — you'll be paying more to the government than you do today — unless governors who institute the tax agree to cut some other tax by an equal amount. Perhaps they could lower the overall sales tax rate by a fraction of a percentage point so the Internet sales tax is really a neutral event on consumers? Unless your state does something like that, don't let your politicians get away with campaign claims that taxes haven't been raised.

The real question, of course, isn't about the word "tax." The real question is: Is an Internet sales tax fair? On that issue, there's just no argument. If there's a sales tax, there's no reason online shoppers should be exempt.

"If it were up to retailers, we would abolish sales tax," French said. But since it has to be collected, it should be applied equally to all retailers, he argues. The legislation "corrects a discriminatory treatment of some retailers over others."

The federal Net sales tax law has gained a lot of momentum. At a Senate hearing Wednesday and a House hearing last month, there was surprisingly little pushback. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., leads the opposition and wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday making the federalism case — he argued that e-commerce firms in California shouldn't have to obey out-of-state laws. The argument rings pretty hollow in our ever-connected world. 

Meanwhile, even some Republicans with sterling conservative reputations — like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — have come out in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act. Still, it almost certainly won't pass during this election season. There are only a couple of days of legislating remaining before Congress enters full-time campaign mode, and I promise that no one will campaign on an Internet sales tax platform. 

No matter. Amazon is taking all the anxiety out of the political conversation, anyway. It is slowly adding sales taxes to shoppers' purchases around the country — Texans just started paying when they check out at Amazon.com; in September, California residents will, too. (Amazon, as explained in detail here, is willing to give up its sales tax advantage because it plans to build distribution centers around the country in an effort to offer same-day shipping and slay brick and mortar shoppers that way.) 

Ten states in all will be taxed by next year. By then, so much of America will be used to paying sales at the world's largest Internet retailer that it will hard to muster opposition to a federal Internet sales tax law. And French believes both Mitt Romney, a former governor, and Barack Obama would sign a law passed by Congress.

In other words, it seems inevitable: You're going to pay more to shop online. If you don't like it, don't fight the Internet sales tax – fight your state's sales tax policies. An Internet sales tax is only fair.

*Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
*Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.