They didn't say the SEC did it, they said the SEC was "responsible" for it.

Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.

> Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.

It seems like SEC didn't even have some basic protections in place for their Twitter account, like having 2nd-factor enabled. That feels kind of negligent already, even if they had a very secure password.

Even if the hacking entity did the pump and dump, then their statement is valid: the SEC’s incaution made this possible.

Since we're all being a bit pedantic here... the SEC would be responsible for negligently allowing a third-party pump to happen-- they would not be responsible for a pump and dump. Pump and dump requires intention (and requires dumping).

Yep, that’s a fine phrasing of it!

Assuming the account was compromised due to errors committed by the SEC, and not the masterful engineering and security protocols of X Corp

I'm sure many people can use this as their defense. "I didn't buy and sell on the news, my friend did!"

> The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price).

How do we know it's not an inside job? Pretty tempting to pull a twitter account takeover and make potentially millions if you a lonely cog in the SEC wheel.

To say nothing of the sworn enemy of the SEC who owns the server.

It IS, look at who traded LOL.