You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the positions of the parties in this scenario.
The computer fraud in this case was not committed against you. It was committed against Amazon. Amazon grants you access to their services, the account does not belong to you. The damages here are not made against you, they are made against Amazon.
Just like in my example, the violator committed fraud against the "buyer" of the car. Neither Amazon or the "buyer" have recourse against you for the supposed owed property/bill, they have to extract damages from the violator. You are not responsible.
On your second point, I will repeat myself: it doesn't matter what the terms or contract say. Such agreements commonly hold terms that are in direct opposition to US law and have no legal basis. Their entire purpose is to dissuade you from pursuing your legal rights at a cost to the company.
The computer fraud in this case was not committed against you. It was committed against Amazon. Amazon grants you access to their services, the account does not belong to you. The damages here are not made against you, they are made against Amazon.
Just like in my example, the violator committed fraud against the "buyer" of the car. Neither Amazon or the "buyer" have recourse against you for the supposed owed property/bill, they have to extract damages from the violator. You are not responsible.
On your second point, I will repeat myself: it doesn't matter what the terms or contract say. Such agreements commonly hold terms that are in direct opposition to US law and have no legal basis. Their entire purpose is to dissuade you from pursuing your legal rights at a cost to the company.