Cybersecurity can be critical for the nation and the agency tasked with national cybersecurity can also do atrocious things. The two are not mutually exclusive.
What? We passed this resolution that led to an increased US presence in southeast Asia in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that later evidence has shown never happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
The NSA itself later admitted they lied about the report, ignoring any sigint that contradicted what they believed happened.
> The National Security Agency (NSA) had broken North Vietnam's codes, and McNamara emphasized to Johnson that certain decrypts conveyed that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had been damaged by American destroyers, thus proving that the second incident happened. However, several intelligence analyses at the time accused McNamara of having either misinterpreted, either intentionally or by mistake, decrypts referring to the first incident of August 2 and presenting them as referring to the second alleged incident of August 4.
Neglected and even actively undermined the right to privacy is an act against the society. Some would consider that being an atrocity - contributing to a dystopia with oveareaching control of unchecked guardians ;)
Undermining the right to privacy is wicked, especially when you consider incorporated methods.
Atracious: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel - after Merriam-Webster. The key word here is "or".
Mind, that ovearreaching control has a great potential of abuse, including physical violence. Also notice, that the right to privacy is often recognized as a human right.
Great film, but right after that, Sean (Robin Williams's character) says:
"It's not about the job. I don't care if you work for the government. But you can do anything you want, you are bound by nothing. What are you passionate about. What do you want? I mean there are guys who work their entire lives laying brick so that their kids have a chance at the opportunities you have here."
So, instead of praising Will, Sean questions why Will seems determined to keep drifting while seeming clever. I always thought the implication was that it's better to define yourself as "for" something than "against" something, even if you sound smart in a wicked way by doing so.