English isn't my first language, and I don't live in America so it's not like this matters to me, but now I'm curious. How is editing a source file you're meant to be editing "transmitting" anything?
Transmission is probably loosely defined as a means of getting code to the target system. It would likely include physically typing into the source file, uploading your own file through CLI or GUI, or pushing to a repository.
The CFAA intentionally used broad wording, so it could be used in many different circumstances as possible. Here "transmitting" would be when the employee (who certainly doesn't have authorization to intentionally break things, mens rea) transmitted the file to the source control server.
The key is "without authorization". You're allowed to fix things and add features, but deliberate sabotage is arguably unauthorized. You might win in court, but as others said elsewhere, court is Too Expensive even if you win.
That, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't go after you for industrial espionage or something.
Except that you're entirely authorized to access the computer system.
Purpose or intent isn't defined in that particular law.
Do you have authorized access? Well, as an employee you do.
This isn't a criminal matter, it's a civil one, and no company is going to sue a saboteur unless they need an example made; they stand to gain nothing.
A company doesn't get to retroactively redefine what "authorized access" is as it suits them.
You have authorized access, but the statute says 'cause unauthorized damage' (which in its most literal reading could be an unintentional bug, too - don't think for a moment I'm supportive of this).
