Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

A US court has dismissed a lawsuit from WhatsApp's former security chief, who alleged that parent company Meta ignored internal flaws he flagged about the messaging app's digital defenses.Abdullah Baig, who claims he was fired in retaliation for raising these concerns, had alleged that billions of users had been put at risk because of these vulnerabilities. Thousands of employees could view sensitive user data, including profile photos and location, Baig claimed in the lawsuit filed in September. A judge ruled he had not presented enough evidence to move forward.The US district court in northern California ruled last month to dismiss Baig's claims, with the judge, Laurel Beeler, writing on 19 March that 'the complaint does not contain sufficient facts to show that the plaintiff reported violations of SEC rules or regulations.'Baig was head of WhatsApp's security division from 2021 to 2025. He said he had expressed concerns about cybersecurity issues to his supervisor five times but was ignored; he also said he wrote directly to Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, about what he saw as a violation of US Securities and Exchange Commission rules and escalating retaliation against him. He also claimed that the company didn't fix the hacking of more than 100,000 accounts daily – and focused instead on user growth. At the time, WhatsApp said in a statement that he was 'a former employee dismissed for poor performance' who had filed a suit based on distorted claims.A WhatsApp spokesperson said: 'This ruling reaffirms what we've said all along: These claims have no merit. We're proud of our strong record of protecting people's privacy and security, and will continue building on it.'Baig's lawyer suggested in a statement emailed to the Guardian that the legal fight was not over. 'Mr Baig is not done fighting for users,' said Wilmer Harris, who represents Baig. 'The judge dismissed on pleading grounds, not merit, and we look forward to addressing those deficiencies and ensuring Meta has to finally engage with the substance of Mr Baig's allegations.'

It's been 12 months since Donald Trump's 'liberation day' on April 2, 2025, when the US president introduced tariffs on nearly every country the US did business with. The move sent shockwaves through the global economy, causing chaos in Washington and beyond. Experts say that if Trump had spent the last 14 months on the golf course instead of in the White House, the US economy would be in a better place. The wholesale slashing of government jobs and defunding of US aid agencies had already signaled that Trump was in a hurry to upset institutions he considered profligate or useless. Investors quickly understood that chaos was an essential tool in Trump's armoury. Almost as soon as he was inaugurated, there was a steady decline in the value of the dollar against other currencies. Investors sold assets denominated in dollars and bought assets elsewhere: Europe, Asia, South America. Dario Perkins, the head of global research at the consultancy TS Lombard, said: 'If you think that discouraging investors from buying assets in the US is a victory, then you don’t believe in a growing economy.' He added that Trump's policies had led to a decline in US manufacturing jobs and a growing trade deficit. The data supports Perkins' claims. US companies stopped hiring almost as soon as liberation day was announced. Significant revisions in February to data covering 2025 pushed payroll employment down by 403,000 jobs, resulting in the addition of just 181,000 jobs last year. This small boost is set against the 163 million people who are employed in the US. Russ Mould, the investment director of the British stockbroker AJ Bell, said: 'America is still home to the world’s largest economy and its reserve currency, as well as the globe’s largest equity and bond markets, but investors continue to reassess their exposure one year on from liberation day.' The next few months of steadily increasing confidence levels followed probably the calmest period in the second Trump presidency. But sentiment began to fall again in the autumn as the White House battled with Congress over the federal budget deficit and much of the public sector was shut down. A poll by the University of Michigan showed consumer confidence at a near record low at the end of 2025. A six-month moving average produced by the Conference Board showed every generation, from baby boomers to gen Xers, had lost confidence in the economy over the past year. Trump’s liberation day executive order stated: 'The decline of US manufacturing capacity threatens the US economy in other ways, including through the loss of manufacturing jobs.' However, the US manufacturing sector shed 100,000 jobs between January 2025 and March 2026. The ratio of manufacturing workers to total nonfarm employment fell to the lowest point since 1939. Bryan Riley, the director of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s free trade initiative, said: 'One year after liberation day, the evidence is in. Tariffs failed even by the Trump administration’s own terms. They did not shrink the trade deficit, did not revitalise manufacturing and did not help farmers. It would be a mistake to replace one set of failed tariffs with another.' Some major US companies have redirected their investments to Europe, but China has proved to be one of the main beneficiaries. In the year to February 2026, China’s industrial profits increased by 15.2%. It's a boom that Beijing will struggle to repeat should Chinese companies face fuel and energy shortages and price hikes. But the decline of two major powers can only be to China’s gain.

Tottenham's new head coach, Roberto De Zerbi, has issued an apology for his previous comments on Mason Greenwood, the Marseille forward who faced charges of attempted rape and assault in 2022. De Zerbi faced backlash from fan groups, including Proud Lilywhites, Women of the Lane, and Spurs Reach, due to his remarks about Greenwood. In his first interview with Tottenham's in-house media, De Zerbi stated, 'I have never wanted to downplay the issue of violence against women or violence against anyone more broadly.' He emphasized his commitment to standing up for vulnerable individuals and expressed regret for any offense caused by his previous statements. 'I am sorry if I offended anyone's feeling with this subject matter – I have a daughter and I'm very sensitive to these things, and I always have been.' Greenwood was charged in October 2022 but the charges were dropped in February 2023 due to a lack of witnesses and new evidence. He has since joined Marseille and denied the allegations. De Zerbi's appointment as Tottenham's head coach was met with criticism from the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust, who expressed 'serious and far-reaching concerns' over his comments on Greenwood.

A Lahore court has ruled in favor of Pakistani singer Ali Zafar in his defamation case against fellow singer Meesha Shafi. On Tuesday, the court ordered Shafi to pay Zafar 5 million rupees ($17,900) in damages.Zafar sued Shafi for defamation in 2018 after she accused him of sexual harassment in Pakistan’s highest-profile #MeToo case.The court’s ruling states that a 2018 social media post by Shafi and an interview she gave to a lifestyle magazine contained “false, defamatory and injurious imputations” against Zafar. The court found that her allegations of sexual harassment of a physical nature had not been proved to be true or shown to be made for the public good, and therefore constituted actionable defamation.The court's decision has sparked concerns that it may set a “deeply troubling precedent” that could discourage victims of sexual harassment from speaking out. Nighat Dad, Shafi's lawyer, stated that the appeal is likely to challenge the judgement on several grounds, including the trial court's selective interpretation of evidence and failure to consider material evidence presented by Shafi.The dispute between Shafi and Zafar has unfolded over several years, with both parties filing complaints against each other. Shafi’s original complaint of sexual harassment against Zafar has been pending before the Supreme Court for several years, and her civil defamation suit against Zafar is also still pending.

Israel’s parliament has approved a law that authorises the death penalty solely for Palestinians convicted in West Bank military courts for what the courts define as "terrorism" killings of Israelis. The measure was greeted with celebration by far‑right politicians, yet it has drawn swift rebuke from the United Nations human‑rights chief, who warned it could constitute a war crime, and from a broad coalition of international observers.Israeli rights organisations argue that the law is the latest manifestation of an apartheid‑style legal framework that systematically privileges Jewish citizens while imposing severe penalties on Palestinians. They contend that such legislation entrenches a system of codified discrimination that has evolved since the state’s founding.Under the new rule, military tribunals in the occupied West Bank – which exclusively try Palestinians – will, by default, impose the death sentence on anyone found guilty of an unlawful killing of Israelis classified as terrorism. In contrast, Israeli citizens charged with comparable offences in the same territory are tried in civilian courts, where the death penalty is not applied.Statistics underscore the disparity: conviction rates for Palestinians in military courts hover at an astonishing 99.74%, whereas Israelis tried for crimes committed in the West Bank have a conviction rate of roughly 3% between 2005 and 2024. These figures highlight the stark imbalance in judicial outcomes.Arab‑Israeli lawmaker Aida Touma‑Suleiman of the Hadash party expressed her dismay, leaving the parliamentary chamber after the vote and stating she anticipated “scenes of happiness” from far‑right figures but was “painful” to see the public echo the same sentiment.The law follows a series of statutes that critics say have progressively eroded Palestinian rights, including the 1950 Absentees’ Property Law, the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, and the 2018 Nation‑State Law, which enshrines Jewish supremacy in identity, settlement policy, and constitutional hierarchy while marginalising Arabic.Human‑rights advocate Yair Dvir of B’Tselem described Israel as an “apartheid regime,” noting that a “whole set of laws” differentiate between Jews and Palestinians and that the death‑penalty legislation is less an outlier than a logical extension of existing policies that deny Palestinians the right to life.Analysts argue that the dehumanisation of Palestinians has deepened to the point where capital punishment can be enacted with minimal dissent and even public celebration by parliamentarians.Physician‑rights activist Tirza Leibowitz of Physicians for Human Rights – Israel warned that the law exemplifies a broader pattern of violations, ranging from inhumane prison conditions to a legal system that often refuses to investigate crimes against Palestinians or actively shields abusive practices.She cited the unresolved deaths of more than 100 Palestinians in the West Bank since the October 2023 Gaza conflict, highlighting the case of 17‑year‑old Walid Ahmad, whose death by starvation in custody was ruled “undeterminable” by an Israeli judge, as evidence of the low value placed on Palestinian lives.Leibowitz also pointed to the recent dropping of charges against soldiers accused of sexual abuse at Sde Temain prison, noting that far‑right protesters, including lawmakers, rallied in support of the accused, further normalising systemic abuse.Touma‑Suleiman linked the new law to the 2018 Nation‑State legislation, recalling a confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he dismissed her criticism, insisting Israel remains “the Middle East’s only democracy.” She later observed that far‑right leader Itamar Ben‑Gvir has openly chanted “Death to Arabs,” rebranding it as “Death to terrorists,” thereby blurring the line between extremist rhetoric and state policy.Overall, the death‑penalty law is being portrayed by critics as a stark illustration of an entrenched apartheid system, raising serious questions about Israel’s adherence to international legal standards and the future of Palestinian rights under occupation.

In a recent interview published by the Free Press, former UK prime minister Tony Blair asserted that the British left has entered an “unholy alliance” with Islamist groups, framing criticism of Israel’s Gaza operations as a new form of anti‑semitism. He further praised former President Donald Trump’s proposed plan for Gaza, describing it as “bold and intelligent.”The commentary arrives amid a sharp decline in British public support for Israel. A YouGov poll found that only 12 % of respondents back Israel’s actions in Gaza, while a clear majority favor measures such as an arms embargo, sanctions, and even the prosecution of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes.Blair’s allegation that the left “casts the Jewish community as supporters of the Israeli government” is challenged by evidence of a broader shift in public sentiment. The Greens, now a leading force on the English left, oppose the Gaza offensive and reject Islamophobia, yet they are led by a Jewish gay politician and champion a socially progressive agenda that includes LGBTQ+ rights and gender equality—hardly the hallmarks of “Islamism.”Data on American Jewry is also invoked. While 71 % of Jewish Americans voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, a separate poll indicated that 40 % of Jewish respondents believe Israel’s military actions amount to genocide, a figure rising to half among those under 35. These figures illustrate that criticism of Israel does not automatically equate to anti‑semitic sentiment.The piece also revisits Blair’s own controversial foreign‑policy record. His government approved extensive arms sales to Saudi Arabia and shut down investigations into those deals, while his post‑premiership institute continued to receive substantial Saudi funding even after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Moreover, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by Blair, is widely regarded as having provided a recruitment boost to Islamist extremist groups.Critics argue that Blair’s narrative is a strategic attempt to deflect growing Western criticism of Israel by painting opponents as extremist sympathizers. The term “Islamo‑gauchisme,” used in France to describe similar accusations, exemplifies a broader pattern of demonising Muslim participation in democratic politics.In sum, the article contends that Blair’s claim lacks substantive evidence, overlooks prevailing public opinion, and mirrors past tactics of smearing dissenting voices. As the debate over Israel’s conduct in Gaza intensifies, the left’s opposition appears rooted in humanitarian concerns rather than any covert Islamist agenda.

London, United Kingdom – Civil‑rights organisations and supporters of the Palestine solidarity movement allege that the British state is employing intimidation tactics following the recent re‑arrest of two young pro‑Palestinian activists who were out on bail. On Monday, 21‑year‑old Qesser Zuhrah was detained at her Watford home after posting on social media urging people to take “direct action”. Counter‑terrorism police charged her with encouraging or assisting criminal damage, a charge tied to the online post. She was granted bail again on Tuesday and is scheduled to appear in court on 17 April. Four days earlier, 23‑year‑old Audrey Corno was arrested in south London by plain‑clothes officers who claimed she had tampered with her electronic tag – a breach of bail conditions she denies. Corno said officers emerged from an undercover vehicle parked outside her home and that her tag had been offline for only 20 minutes, a duration she could not have caused. Both activists were previously imprisoned for alleged involvement in separate 2024 raids on military‑hardware manufacturers linked to the Israeli war effort, actions claimed by the direct‑action group Palestine Action. Zuhrah is part of the “Filton 24” collective accused of breaking into an Elbit Systems UK weapons factory in Bristol, while Corno faced charges related to a break‑in at GRiD Defence Systems in Buckinghamshire. Although a High Court ruling in February declared the UK’s designation of Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organisation unlawful, the government is preparing an appeal, meaning public support for the group remains illegal for now. Naila Ahmed, head of campaigns at CAGE International, described Zuhrah’s re‑arrest as part of an “active repression” of pro‑Palestine voices, arguing that the legislation is being used to criminalise political speech and dissent. She called for the abolition of terrorism laws, saying they have historically served as tools of political control rather than public protection. Human Rights Watch has echoed these concerns, noting a “disproportionate targeting” of groups such as climate‑change activists and Palestine protesters, which undermines the right to protest without fear of harassment. The arrests occur amid escalating tension between the Metropolitan Police and Britain’s sizable Palestine solidarity movement. A large march is slated for Saturday in London, where demonstrators are expected to chant slogans like “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”. The Met, which had paused mass arrests after the High Court decision, has recently reversed that policy, raising the likelihood of further detentions. In parallel, a court hearing is set for Wednesday involving Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s Ben Jamal and Stop the War Coalition’s Chris Nineham, who face accusations of breaching protest restrictions in January 2025. Public sentiment appears to be shifting: a YouGov poll found that one in three Britons express “no sympathy at all” for the Israeli side after the conflict has claimed over 72,000 lives and devastated the Gaza Strip. Critics argue that the Labour government, led by Keir Starmer, has intensified its crackdown on pro‑Palestine activism, citing a wave of arrests and the ongoing proscription of Palestine Action as evidence of a broader strategy to suppress dissent.

The city council of Milpitas, a suburb north of San Jose, California, has approved a program to provide free doorbell cameras to residents. The initiative aims to enhance public safety and help police collect video evidence. The program will offer one camera per household on a first-come, first-served basis.City councilmember Evelyn Chua emphasized that public safety is her top priority, and this door camera initiative is about strengthening crime prevention at home. The program is intended to build a stronger connection between the community and law enforcement to help deter crime and protect neighborhoods.Milpitas police plan to share a link for residents to voluntarily upload doorbell footage and organize community events where residents can sign up to participate in the program. The police department will not have access to any residential footage unless it is shared with them.The program has raised concerns about surveillance, with some critics arguing that doorbell cameras, especially Amazon's Ring, help law enforcement surveil neighborhoods. However, the police department has stated that all video received through the program is 100% voluntarily shared by residents.While Milpitas city council members have said the program aims to improve public safety, the city plans to distribute cameras that provide similar or equal capabilities to Ring cameras, but without the need for subscription services.

Jurors in two separate U.S. courts delivered historic rulings that, for the first time, hold major social‑media platforms financially accountable for designs that allegedly harm young users. In New Mexico, a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for claims that its products contributed to child sexual exploitation and other harms. The following day, a California jury found both Meta and YouTube liable, imposing $6 million in damages for deliberately engineering addictive experiences. The verdicts arrive amid a wave of lawsuits filed by more than 2,000 plaintiffs—including families, school districts, and state attorneys general—targeting Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap. While both companies have announced intentions to appeal, the judgments signal a shift from public criticism to concrete legal exposure. During the trials, Meta’s defense repeatedly cited the American Psychiatric Association’s position that “social media addiction is not a thing” in the DSM‑5‑TR. The APA countered that the absence of a formal diagnosis does not negate the phenomenon’s existence, emphasizing growing research on the mental‑health impacts of compulsive platform use. Internal communications presented as evidence painted a starkly different picture. A 2020 Meta email exchange described Instagram as “a drug” and likened the company’s role to that of “pushers,” while another message warned that targeting 11‑year‑olds resembled tactics once used by tobacco firms. Similar concerns emerged from YouTube, where an internal document explicitly stated the goal was “not viewership, it’s viewer addiction.” TikTok’s own research echoed these findings, concluding that users could become addicted in under 35 minutes and that compulsive usage correlates with a range of negative mental‑health outcomes. Moody’s, a risk‑assessment firm, warned that the dual verdicts establish a precedent whereby design‑driven user harm can trigger liability. In an analysis, analysts Adam Grossman and Taro Ramberg noted that insurers should focus on the emerging “design‑centered liability theory,” which links engagement‑driven features—such as infinite scrolling and autoplay—to compensable injuries. They cautioned that the current cases are merely the first data points in a broader legal trend. Beyond social media, the same design principles appear in video games, sports‑betting platforms, AI chatbots and online retail. Moody’s tracker lists over 1,100 pending cases in Los Angeles alone and estimates roughly 4,000 lawsuits targeting 166 U.S. companies for allegedly addictive software design. Both Meta and YouTube maintain that they disagree with the verdicts. YouTube’s spokesperson called the California decision a “misunderstanding” of the platform’s nature, while Meta emphasized the complexity of teen mental health and the non‑unanimous nature of the California jury’s finding. Nevertheless, the courts have signaled that even without a settled clinical definition of “social‑media addiction,” companies can be held responsible for the foreseeable harms of their product designs.