This is the kind of thing that the CFAA is supposed to be for. If a fired employee broke into the office and welded the HR department's door shut, they'd end up in prison, and what these people are doing is just as bad.
Logic is not part of the CFAA.
Your metaphor to police corruption is also why "context" is an important thing. In that case people would actually get hurt, in this case a company loses money. They are different scenarios completely.
A bunch of trump supports went to Washington to "protest" - not turning out very well for them. Similarly with many other protests (BLM etc etc), folks getting picked up breaking windows, stealing, burning down buildings etc - they don't get off free because it's a protest or there is not something in the law that makes calling something illegal a protest legal.
No one made that claim.
For anyone who has paid attention to CFAA if you have a computer used in interstate commerce and someone knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer, then whamo, down you go.
This code that has been written to disrupt the operations of this business (Kellog) if it does disrupt their operations and they complain, the person knowingly transmitting it is at risk.
Again, calling something a protest is not a free pass.
"Rutgers University professor Todd Vachon, who teaches classes about labor relations, said he's not sure the company will be able to hire enough workers to replace the ones who are out on strike in the current economy, and Kellogg's may have a hard time finding people willing to cross a picket line."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kelloggs-will-replace-striking-...
So yes. They have been fired. Kellogg has announced that.
They cannot fire the employees in question, they can only replace them 1:1 and w/ the amount of publicity, and the striking it's bound to deter a lot of potential applicants, and with people using automated and manual methods to spoof applications --some presumably locally even going through the entire application process, going through training, and quitting day one on the floor... seems to me like it'll bleed Kellogg's dry long before they ever find the employees they need to continue.
They're more likely to fully automate 100% of the plant before they find the staff they need for permanent replacements.
I'm seriously betting Kellogg's does a full reversal, esp when profits start to fall, and revenue expectations get dwarfed by the boycotts that are ongoing.
Personally, I can do without ever buying poptarts, eggo waffles, or any of their cereal. There's plenty of alternative junk food out there to fill the gap.
Why is this relevant? Does being labeled as a "striker" give you additional legal rights that you wouldn't otherwise have?
>It's no different than mailing in a bunch of applications, it's just digital instead. They aren't burning down the offices
"not burning down offices" seems like a pretty low bar for acceptable conduct. that doesn't mean their behavior is legal. The obvious analogy would be: would it be legal to spam a pizza restaurant with fake orders? Or spamming a doctor/hospital with fake appointments? Or spamming police departments with fake tips?
Actually, yes.
For instance, if you are an employee who is striking, you have the right to use racial slurs to abuse and harass employees who are not striking, without being fired for use of those remarks. See Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB. (Remarks included: "Go back to Africa, you bunch of f--- losers!", statements regarding fried chicken, watermelon, etc.)
There are a variety of other rights conferred by law.
Spamming a police department with fake tips is specifically illegal (making a false police report and/or obstruction of justice and/or USC 1001). I'm not sure about fake appointments for a hospital, that seems the most unclear of the cases you've listed.
However, Kellogg's is soliciting job applications from the public. Automating the submission of a single application is clearly legal, but submitting many with the intention of overloading digital systems is clearly illegal.
IMO, this case is legally ambiguous because they are using a digital system to overwhelm a human system.
The public is 'authorized' to submit one application, so it's hard to say submitting many applications is unauthorized, unless done with intent of crashing servers.
Yeah fuck it if this is bad, then I definitely don't want to be good.
It isn't? In many parts of the US a car is needed to hold a job, or to even get to the grocery store (which might be miles away). Moreover, grocery stores do provide the means to "feed your family". Does that mean looting/vandalizing them is fair game after failing to "negotiate" with them?
If you have somehow gotten yourself into a position where you are supporting a family based on knowing how to do one thing that you can only do for one company, sorry but you either massive screwed up your life (unlikely) or you are afraid to step outside your comfort zone and work elsewhere (likely).
By what principle does a group of striking employees have some intrinsic God-given right (or right conferred by some other source of truth, outside the law) to sabotage the company that they are protesting? Is the company their property, that they have veto power over hiring? Is the labor force their property? If there is some property-like interest that grants these rights, then under what circumstances would that interest became their property rather than the original worker's? Is it strictly first come, first serve? Is there a vesting period during which this right accrues? Are the striking employees as a group to be considered a form of government, that they may regulate hiring and firing? What elevates this right or interest over other cherished principles, such as free association? Or do the strikers simply wish to subjugate such principles to serve their own self-interest?
I believe that you propose mob rule. It is no surprise, then, that you are in conflict with a nation ruled by laws, rather than by mobs and strongmen.