> the Court adopted a “gates-up-or-down” approach: either you are entitled to access the information or you are not.
To me, it sounds like you are entitled to submit a job application or you are not. I don't see how a charge under the CFAA for submitting an application would stick, when they are inviting the public to submit applications.
Nonsense. Using a public form, which is clearly intended to be a public form, is not using a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization.
You can't make someone using your computer a crime just by retroactively deciding that you don't like they way someone used it.
They are also the reason many corporations are immoral.
Or: most unions are legitimately just trying to improve the situation for their workers, and many business owners have a conscience and weigh more than profits in their business decisions. It’s mostly the mega-wealthy who have become disconnected from normal humans and give us these Snidely Whiplash characterizations that ultimately paint both sides with a bad brush.
Legal lawbreaking is such a stupid concept. Have people forgotten that civil disobedience is purposely breaking the law for good reason? God it's like an entire generation forgot how to be rebels when they grew up -- "Oh I'm sorry could you pretty please let me protest you."
Isn't part of civil disobedience that you understand there will be negative legal consequences for your actions, but you do them anyway? What I see a bunch of today is people saying "yeah I broke the law but I should be immune from the consequences because blah blah blah".
That and denial of service doesn't even need to be something that "clogs up" technical systems. Just making it impossible for the HR people to work by overwhelming them is still a DOS attack.
This isn't the case, though, the intent is to disrupt their ability to hire non-union workers by submitting bad data, not by taking down their ability to ingest data in general.