The argument that being a victim of espionage constitutes per se negligence seems like a stretch.
For spies to exist at all, they need to fool whatever supervision is in place. For missing them to be negligence, it would have to be easy to prevent spying from happening.
When a warbler feeds a cuckoo chick and lets his own chicks starve, is that because he's a bad parent who could be fixed with a lawsuit, or is it just a fact about the ecosystem?
The tech industry is chock full of spies working for one side or the other. FAANG has been an intelligence front since the beginning. The only bullshit here is targeting KSA, when everyone's involved.
> ...to appease a neigh beneficial owner...
Has anyone seen this use of neigh before? Is it a legal term? What does it mean?
Alternative title could be: Twitter sued for discrimination and low personel diversity
The dangers of diverse hiring.
The biggest lesson here is the threat is within, but most security strategies focus on the concept of external threat.
Whether twitter was negligent or not the bigger lesson here is that you should assume every big tech company is compromised by every state that cares to do so. Don’t trust any company with compromising information. The bigger the company, the higher the chance that they employ a spy for your adversary.