I don't understand why Amazon is relevant here, it is like saying someone who worked for Target assaulted a random person, really doesn't make any sense. This article just seems to fishing for clicks and attention.
Presumably this person developed hacking skills as a result of working at Amazon or was hired by Amazon as a consequence of possessing such skills. Surely you don't believe that working at Target makes a person more likely to commit assault?
Well I second part of what you said was obvious.. but your logic is flawed because I could use the same logic if someone that committed a mass shooting worked at a gun range or if a butcher stabbed someone.
I'll also say this you're insinuating that Amazon has hired this person because of their skills of being able to break into systems. Without proof of this that point is completely irrelevant. To second this why would they not check any of the other previous employers? Seems like you don't like Amazon and my point still stands that Amazon was irrelevant to this whole situation even if she worked for them and Capital One used their services, and that this article is using Amazon for attention.
I'm insinuating, if anything, that the skills needed to be an effective hacker and those needed to be an effective Amazon programmer likely overlap, that's all.
That being said, I agree with you that the person who put Amazon in the headline was trying to discredit Amazon, just like the person who mentioned that Jeff Bezos ate baby whale was trying to discredit him.