"Amazon Future Engineer is a comprehensive childhood-to-career program aimed at increasing access to computer science education for students from underserved and underrepresented communities."

First saw something like this 30+ years ago - someone grabbed a list of publicly available userIDs from the company's email system and apparently either manually or using a keyboard macro simply tried multiple times to logon with an incorrect password to lock out the entire company's thousands of user and team IDs. The company used mainframe systems/databases with centralized passwords, so didn't take long at all (not even 30 minutes, IIRC) to get everyone back in business. One imagines that such a simple 'attack' - essentially the same as what the guy did some 30 years later in 2021 - would wreak a lot more havoc in today's world with its overwhelmingly-complicated intertwined security layers, which are further compounded by the need to get consensus from a number of parties - e.g., security, risk, compliance, governance, operations, legal - that it's safe to reopen things for business even after a fix is identified. It seems part of this guy's hefty sentence is likely attributable to businesses relying on systems and infrastructure and bureaucracy that are vulnerable to and unable to recover quickly from even trivial 'attacks' like this that leave systems and data untouched, no?

Don't count on help from the Supreme Court on this. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that time spent by workers waiting to undergo anti-employee theft security screenings is not "integral and indispensable" to their work, and thus not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
 
Jesse Busk was among several workers employed by the temp agency Integrity Staffing Solutions to work in Amazon.com's warehouse in Nevada to help package and fulfill orders. At the end of each day, they had to spend about 25 minutes waiting to undergo anti-theft security checks before leaving. Busk and his fellow workers sued their employer, claiming they were entitled to be paid for those 25 minutes under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They argued that the time waiting could have been reduced if more screeners were added, or shifts were staggered so workers did not have to wait for the checks at the same time. Furthermore, since the checks were made to prevent employee theft, they only benefited the employers and the customers, not the employees themselves.

Even if you just search for documentation or help with errors, aren't you going to get AI assistance whether you want it or not?