STOP RISAA, the FISA Mass Surveillance Expansion


Girlie Builder
Aug 12, 2006
FISA is going to be renewed as RISAA: Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which grants a lot more power to surveil people.

What you can do:
Use the Electronic Frontier Foundation's easy website for connecting you with your US State's Senator(s):
More info from the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website on what to do and say:
Before You Call
This action will guide you through calling your representatives. You will likely either talk to an office staff member or be asked to leave a message. You might be asked your name and/or your zip code or address, so, have those handy.

What to say
Hello, my name is _______ and I live at _____, and I am asking you to please vote NO on the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act.

You can look up phone numbers or website contact forms by searching by State:

Here is another website similar to the one from the Electronic Frontier Foundation for helping you to automatically contact your State Senator(s):

More background information:
NSA ’just days from taking over the internet’ warns Edward Snowden

If the bill becomes law, any company or individual that provides ANY service whatsoever may be forced to assist in NSA surveillance, as long as they have access to equipment on which communications are transmitted or stored--such as routers, servers, cell towers, etc.

Currently, the NSA can force internet service providers such as Google and Verizon to hand over sensitive data concerning NSA targets.

However, Goitein claims that through an “innocuous change” to the definition of “electronic communications surveillance provider” in the FISA 702 bill, the U.S. government could go far beyond its current scope and force nearly every company and individual that provides any internet-related service to assist with NSA surveillance.

“That sweeps in an enormous range of U.S. businesses that provide WiFi to their customers and therefore have access to equipment on which communications transit. Barber shops, laundromats, fitness centers, hardware stores, dentist’s offices.”

Additionally, the people forced to hand over data would be unable to discuss the information provided due to hefty gag order penalties and conditions outlined in the bill, added Goitein.

The bill initially received heavy pushback from privacy-conscious Republicans but passed through the U.S. House of Representatives on April 13.

In her view, the amendment could even see service providers such as cleaners, plumbers, and IT service providers that have access to laptops and routers inside of people’s homes be forced to provide information and serve as “surrogate spies,” claimed Goitein.

Republican Congressperson Anna Paulina Luna, who voted against the bill in the House of Representatives, said Section 702 was an “irresponsible extension” of the NSA’s powers. Luna added that if government agencies wanted access to data, they must be forced to apply for a warrant.

The bill is slated for a vote on April 19 in the U.S. Senate.

Tue 16 Apr 2024
The US isn’t just reauthorizing its surveillance laws – it’s vastly expanding them

A little-known amendment to the reauthorized version of FISA would enlarge the government’s surveillance powers to a drastic, draconian degree

The US House of Representatives agreed to reauthorize a controversial spying law known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last Friday without any meaningful reforms, dashing hopes that Congress might finally put a stop to intelligence agencies’ warrantless surveillance of Americans’ emails, text messages, and phone calls.

The vote not only reauthorized the act, though; it also vastly expanded the surveillance that law enforcement can conduct. In a move that Senator Ron Wyden condemned as “terrifying,” the House also doubled down on a surveillance authority that has been used against American protesters, journalists, and political donors in a chilling assault on free speech.

The Turner-Himes amendment – so named for its champions Representatives Mike Turner and Jim Himes – would permit federal law enforcement to also force “any other service provider” with access to communications equipment to hand over data. That means anyone with access to a WiFi router, server or even phone – anyone from a landlord to a laundromat – could be required to help the government spy.

if it passes there, Joe Biden is likely to sign it. All Americans should be terrified by that prospect.

In arguing for the reauthorization of Section 702 late last year, Turner, chair of the House intelligence committee, shockingly suggested in a closed-door briefing that the law could be used to spy on Americans protesting against the war in Gaza.
Last edited:
Well it'll happen anyway. As the apparatus increasingly centralizes there will become more and more of a reason for both parties to distrust one another and attempt to forcefully size power via underhanded means so as to control the apparatus from their rivals abusing it against them. This back and forth will lead to paranoia and further expansion of the central intelligence until the system fractures due to distrust between the left & right, then civil war erupts.

Enjoy the show! 😉
no need to be hasty when you can enjoy candy .


not mocking the thing about grass roots and stuff , but , yes , it certainly exists .
Thank you immensely for taking the time to read this thread and for anyone who took action to share their opinion with one or more Senators.

Unfortunately, the Senate has voted to pass the RISAA bill.

A bit more background info:
April 12, 2024
Prior to passing the bill, the House voted 212-212 on bipartisan amendment proposed by a rare left-right coalition designed to rein in the government’s use of warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons. The tie[d] vote meant [that] the amendment failed.

the House failed to adopt a bipartisan amendment to curtail warrantless surveillance inside the U.S. Section 702 of the law

The passing of the bill:
April 20, 2024
The bill now goes to President Joe Biden, whose administration says FISA's warrantless spying power is vital to national security. Amendments to expand privacy safeguards failed.

The final vote came after the Senate defeated six amendments from progressive and conservative senators who said the spying powers are too broad and demanded protections for Americans’ civil liberties and privacy.

The bill’s passage came on the heels of a pitched battle between the U.S. intelligence community and an unusual coalition of progressive and conservative civil liberties advocates, who argued that the powers are too expansive and impinge on the privacy of Americans.

“It’s important that people understand how sweeping this bill is,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Intelligence Committee and outspoken proponent of privacy protections. “Something was inserted at the last minute, which would basically compel somebody like a cable guy to spy for the government. They would force the person to do it and there would be no appeal.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said that 60% of the president’s daily brief is composed of 702-derived materials
April 20, 2024
the Senate caved to pressure from U.S. intelligence agencies and passed a bill that reauthorizes and dramatically expands Section 702 of FISA, creating new ways for the government to spy on Americans without a warrant.

The “Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act” includes dangerous provisions, such as:
- Expanding the definition of “electronic communications service providers,” which allows the government to force a wide range of U.S. businesses to give the NSA access to their wifi routers, phones, and other communications equipment.
- Requiring completely suspicionless searches of Section 702 data for non-U.S. persons seeking permission to enter the country, including visa holders who are longtime residents of the United States and are returning from travel.
- Weakening the FISA Court’s ability to obtain independent input from experts on civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy when the government secretly seeks permission to conduct novel forms of surveillance.

What can you do, now? It becomes more important than ever to find ways to protect your own privacy, by finding ways of reducing the amount of your communications and your data that get swept up on a daily basis.

The following link can give you a great start in terms of giving you many alternative options for a large variety of likely surveillance-invasive programs, tools, and services that you may currently be using.

Email service providers which have operations based in the US have been required to treat any email message that you store on their servers for more than 6 months as a "business communication" and thus such messages have had to be handed over the the intelligence community. A potential implication is that email messages from a business might not even have such a waiting time. With immediate scanning by AI for Gmail and Microsoft email messages, questions arise whether these companies may be compelled to provide personal email messages even sooner than the 6 month requirement. The following list contains reputable email service providers whose operations are outside of the US. A minor caution that the CTemplar service has been discontinued, but the other services on the list are certainly worth considering for yourself, for your family, for our schools, and for our businesses:

Let us say that you are able to get Administrator rights on your computer or that that you can ask your IT Administrator to one-time enter their login credentials on your computer to run a script. The following website can help you to generate such a script, and you can use the following website to comprehensively improve your Operating System's privacy, along with improving the privacy of some of the web browsers that get installed by default on many computers:

If you enjoy using Google Chrome, read the following spoiler.
Spoiler :
To avoid the tracking and uploading of significant amounts of Events recorded about nearly your every move that you make through the Chrome web browser, and to avoid the tracking and uploading of file names of the majority of the files on your computer, it would be quite wise to use the website's CONFIGURE PROGRAMS -> "Disable Google background automatic updates" option.

The Google Update service, which is automatically installed when Google Chrome is installed, serves two purposes: 1) to collect and upload logs of your activities within Chrome as well as of scans of your file system's files and 2) to download and install updates to Google products, such as Google Chrome.

Incidentally, Google Chrome is one of the easiest programs to update because it does not provide any installation options. The downside is that the Google Chrome installer will not allow you to disable Google Update. The upside is that updating Google Chrome manually is as simple as downloading the installer executable file and running it, meaning that there is very little incentive for using the Google Update program, while there are multiple good reasons to disable the Google Update program.

A further consideration is that if you enjoy using or want to try out using web-browser extensions which assist with privacy, many of these extensions will get intentionally broken by Google in an update to Chrome in June 2024.

In an analysis of online threats, it can be said that a majority of malware can come from two sources: 1) file downloads and 2) malicious JavaScript.

Updates to web browsers do not explicitly protect against category 1), since it is up to the user to exercise caution when choosing to execute downloaded files on one's computer.

Many of the most effective privacy-enabling extensions are ones which block 2) malicious JavaScript. Google's introduction of "Manifest 3" in June 2024 will break some or all of such extensions from working, thereby exposing many more users to malicious JavaScript.

Some of the authors of those extensions may rebuild brand new extensions over time, but the powers of those extensions will be significantly reduced after "Manifest 3" gets released.

A large portion of a web browser's exploits are implemented by malicious JavaScript code. There are many in the security space who would likely agree that having an outdated web browser with strong protection against malicious JavaScript will be a far more secure setup than a latest-updated web browser which has its protections against malicious JavaScript being neutered.

Thus, running the script to disable Google Update before June 2024 would be wise. Google Chrome has countered this effort by privacy activists by reporting within Google Chrome that the spying Google Update service has been disabled and offers to re-enable it for you; simply ignore Google's warning about not being able to spy on you as effectively. Better yet, switch to a web browser which offers more privacy protections as soon as it gets installed, perhaps choosing from the "degoogle" link listed above.

If you contacted your Senator(s) and they voted Nay, please contact their office again and thank them for their effort. Should you wish to contact your Senator(s) to express dismay at the way that they voted Yea, please do so in a courteous and respectful manner, which can help them to be more likely to listen to you in the future.

Voting Results, Ordered by State
Spoiler :

1: Senators whose term of service is set to expire in January 2025
2: Senators whose term of service is set to expire in January 2027
3: Senators whose term of service is set to expire in January 2029
%: Committee Member on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
@: Committee Member on Intelligence
NoV: No Vote
Totals: Yea = 60; Nay = 34; No Vote = 6

Yea = Alabama: Britt, Katie Boyd (Republican) 3
Nay = Alabama: Tuberville, Tommy (Republican) 2
Yea = Alaska: Murkowski, Lisa (Republican) 3
Yea = Alaska: Sullivan, Dan (Republican) 2
Yea = Arizona: Kelly, Mark (Democrat) 3 @
Yea = Arizona: Sinema, Kyrsten (Independent) 1 %
Yea = Arkansas: Boozman, John (Republican) 3
Yea = Arkansas: Cotton, Tom (Republican) 2 @
Nay = California: Butler, Laphonza R. (Democrat) 1 %
Yea = California: Padilla, Alex (Democrat) 3
Yea = Colorado: Bennet, Michael F. (Democrat) 3 @
Yea = Colorado: Hickenlooper, John W. (Democrat) 2
Yea = Connecticut: Blumenthal, Richard (Democrat) 3 %
Nay = Connecticut: Murphy, Christopher (Democrat) 1
Yea = Delaware: Carper, Thomas R. (Democrat) 1 %
Yea = Delaware: Coons, Christopher A. (Democrat) 2
Yea = Florida: Rubio, Marco (Republican) 3 @
Nay = Florida: Scott, Rick (Republican) 1 %
Yea = Georgia: Ossoff, Jon (Democrat) 2 % @
NoV = Georgia: Warnock, Raphael G. (Democrat) 3
Nay = Hawaii: Hirono, Mazie K. (Democrat) 1
Yea = Hawaii: Schatz, Brian (Democrat) 3
Yea = Idaho: Crapo, Mike (Republican) 3
Yea = Idaho: Risch, James E. (Republican) 2 @
Yea = Illinois: Duckworth, Tammy (Democrat) 3
Nay = Illinois: Durbin, Richard J. (Democrat) 2
Nay = Indiana: Braun, Mike (Republican) 1
Yea = Indiana: Young, Todd (Republican) 3
Yea = Iowa: Ernst, Joni (Republican) 2
Yea = Iowa: Grassley, Chuck (Republican) 3
Nay = Kansas: Marshall, Roger (Republican) 2 %
Yea = Kansas: Moran, Jerry (Republican) 3 @
Yea = Kentucky: McConnell, Mitch (Republican) 2 @
Nay = Kentucky: Paul, Rand (Republican) 3 %
Yea = Louisiana: Cassidy, Bill (Republican) 2
Yea = Louisiana: Kennedy, John (Republican) 3
Yea = Maine: Collins, Susan M. (Republican) 2 @
Yea = Maine: King, Angus S., Jr. (Independent) 1 @
Yea = Maryland: Cardin, Benjamin L. (Democrat) 1
Nay = Maryland: Van Hollen, Chris (Democrat) 3
Nay = Massachusetts: Markey, Edward J. (Democrat) 2
Nay = Massachusetts: Warren, Elizabeth (Democrat) 1
Yea = Michigan: Peters, Gary C. (Democrat) 2 %
Yea = Michigan: Stabenow, Debbie (Democrat) 1
Yea = Minnesota: Klobuchar, Amy (Democrat) 1
Yea = Minnesota: Smith, Tina (Democrat) 2
Yea = Mississippi: Hyde-Smith, Cindy (Republican) 2
Yea = Mississippi: Wicker, Roger F. (Republican) 1 @
Nay = Missouri: Hawley, Josh (Republican) 1 %
NoV = Missouri: Schmitt, Eric (Republican) 3
Nay = Montana: Daines, Steve (Republican) 2
Nay = Montana: Tester, Jon (Democrat) 1
Yea = Nebraska: Fischer, Deb (Republican) 1
Yea = Nebraska: Ricketts, Pete (Republican) 2
NoV = Nevada: Cortez Masto, Catherine (Democrat) 3
Yea = Nevada: Rosen, Jacky (Democrat) 1 %
Yea = New Hampshire: Hassan, Margaret Wood (Democrat) 3 %
Yea = New Hampshire: Shaheen, Jeanne 2 (Democrat)
Nay = New Jersey: Booker, Cory A. (Democrat) 2
Nay = New Jersey: Menendez, Robert (Democrat) 1
Yea = New Mexico: Heinrich, Martin (Democrat) 1 @
Yea = New Mexico: Luján, Ben Ray (Democrat) 2
Yea = New York: Gillibrand, Kirsten E. (Democrat) 1 @
Yea = New York: Schumer, Charles E. (Democrat) 3 @
Yea = North Carolina: Budd, Ted (Republican) 3
Yea = North Carolina: Tillis, Thom (Republican) 2
Nay = North Dakota: Cramer, Kevin (Republican) 1
Nay = North Dakota: Hoeven, John (Republican) 3
Nay = Ohio: Brown, Sherrod (Democrat) 1
NoV = Ohio: Vance, J. D. (Republican) 3
Yea = Oklahoma: Lankford, James (Republican) 3 % @
Yea = Oklahoma: Mullin, Markwayne (Republican) 2
Nay = Oregon: Merkley, Jeff (Democrat) 2
Nay = Oregon: Wyden, Ron (Democrat) 3 @
Yea = Pennsylvania: Casey, Robert P., Jr. (Democrat) 1 @
Yea = Pennsylvania: Fetterman, John (Democrat) 3
Yea = Rhode Island: Reed, Jack (Democrat) 2 @
Yea = Rhode Island: Whitehouse, Sheldon (Democrat) 1
Yea = South Carolina: Graham, Lindsey (Republican) 2
Nay = South Carolina: Scott, Tim (Republican) 3
Yea = South Dakota: Rounds, Mike (Republican) 2 @
Yea = South Dakota: Thune, John (Republican) 3
Nay = Tennessee: Blackburn, Marsha (Republican) 1
Nay = Tennessee: Hagerty, Bill (Republican) 2
Yea = Texas: Cornyn, John (Republican) 2 @
Nay = Texas: Cruz, Ted (Republican) 1
Nay = Utah: Lee, Mike (Republican) 3
Yea = Utah: Romney, Mitt (Republican) 1 %
Nay = Vermont: Sanders, Bernard (Independent) 1 @
Nay = Vermont: Welch, Peter (Democrat) 3
Yea = Virginia: Kaine, Tim (Democrat) 1
Yea = Virginia: Warner, Mark R. (Democrat) 2
Nay = Washington: Cantwell, Maria (Democrat) 1
Nay = Washington: Murray, Patty (Democrat) 3
NoV = West Virginia: Capito, Shelley Moore (Republican) 2
NoV = West Virginia: Manchin, Joe, III (Democrat) 1
Nay = Wisconsin: Baldwin, Tammy (Democrat) 1
Nay = Wisconsin: Johnson, Ron (Republican) 3 %
Yea = Wyoming: Barrasso, John (Republican) 1
Nay = Wyoming: Lummis, Cynthia M. (Republican) 2
I appreciate you bringing awareness to the issue. I'm just disappointed I hadn't heard about this before.
If you are interested in simply learning more, while being open to the possibility of getting involved with similar such causes, you can better keep on top of some of these issues by bookmarking and regularly visiting the following websites: The Electronic Frontier Foundation The American Civil Liberties Union
ACLU, call your senator… yes yes, but what might actually work?
All of this is part of the coming "Beast System" which will be headed by Lucifer and the Anti-Christ's one world government.

We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against the powers of darkness, spirits in high places, etc...
Ever notice how all the bills that prop up the empire and their corporate benefactors pass and all the ones that would support American families and their working constituents fail?

I contact my reps and stuff often enough that I know I'm on some NSA list somewhere before this is passed. There is quickly becoming only one recourse for Americans and some of us are jsut waiting for enough Americans to become aware of that situation.
Americans forget how to check ships so they don’t hit bridges, run railroads that don’t destroy small towns, and build airplanes that fly intact so I don’t think it really matters what any American thinks. History has already decided where that nation is going, and it’s “down, kkkicking and skkkreaming the whole way”
Americans forget how to check ships so they don’t hit bridges, run railroads that don’t destroy small towns, and build airplanes that fly intact so I don’t think it really matters what any American thinks. History has already decided where that nation is going, and it’s “down, kkkicking and skkkreaming the whole way”
While there is a certain amount of truth on many levels (both spiritual and temporal) to what you say I disagree with americans forgetting to check ships, run railroads, etc.

A clever trick to cover up the sinister actions of agents of evil. Oh don't misunderstand, history has decided, oh yes. But I'm disagreeing with that one portion of your statement.
the government has been breaking the law without consequences an awful lot lately

i don't like the end conclusion of that, because historically the only recourse is for the government doing so to stop existing.
Top Bottom