That feels like the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument. That's the same argument used for cameras everywhere.
That's not what the quote is getting at though, they're saying the 5th amendment wouldn't apply here similar to how you couldn't plead the 5th when ordered to provide keys to a safe. Plus, if you have a court order to provide access to a device that means somebody convinced a judge to sign off on it, which is a much higher bar than the mass surveillance that argument usually is associated with.
The right answer here is: Get the best education you can afford, at a cost commensurate with its value. There are many low cost options available if you look for them.
That's just it, you're not supposed to be able to take loans out that you can't afford. It's bad for you and it's bad for the lender (assuming they were ever acting with good intentions). Yet here we are.
The COVID-19 vaccine adverse event numbers are a few orders of magnitude higher than would normally be considered even remotely acceptable.
How do you define "acceptable" and how can you possibly reach your conclusion from a list of symptoms and a number of occurrences in isolation? VAERS is quite clear about the caveats with the data. For reference, my query lists 350k total events constituting, in combination and among others, 70k incidents of "HEADACHES", 55k incidents of "PAIN", 43k incidents of "NAUSEA", and only 6k of "COVID-19". Interestingly 19 people also reported "OBESITY" after vaccination, 5 reported a "FEAR OF FALLING", 67 reported "INJURY", 131 needed "SURGERY", 1 reported "DEATH OF PET", and 19 reported "WRONG PATIENT".
It means that if someone in IT wants to drop, say, something on your computer like porn, to get you fired, then you have no legal recourse to pursue, because, well, they were authorised to access your system.
that's still a crime, it's just not computer fraud
you could for example exfiltrate sensitive data and leak it, because, well, you had access to that system.
\ that's still a crime, it's just not computer fraud
Someone in HR could publish your personal records publicly including any disciplinaries or poor work records because they had access to that system.
that's still a crime, it's just not computer fraud
It's fairly clear that this ruling has been reached because cops, no matter how dodgy, are above reproach in the US, but the unintended consequences are massive and scary.
Admittedly I did not read the opinion or even TFA but I suspect bribery is still a crime, just not computer fraud. The unintended consequences are appropriate.
HR can now leak and gossip about sensitive data
that's still a crime, it's just not computer fraud
IT can turn company server farms into bitcoin mining operations
Honestly not sure if that's a crime or not. Either way it's probably grounds for termination.
sales people can now sell of sensitive data to get a job at a competitor.
that's still a crime, it's just not computer fraud
Good salesmen and good repairmen will never go hungry. -- R.E. Schenk