Maybe Trump was protected, his tweets can certainly move markets. And while it's possible to track investments in smaller stocks, someone buying futures or ETFs on large indices to profit from that would likely be able to stay anonymous. There are way too many trades in S&P500 on a given day to find the one that sticks out.
Are Twitter protecting "even higher" profile accounts? Why do they put more effort into protecting these "even higher" profile accounts? And how do they protect these accounts?
And if that really is the case, and this product feature is outed during this election campaign year, then Twitter deserve a court summons.
I seriously doubt Trump's account would, or should have that much more protection than other high profile, verified accounts.
You're probably getting downvoted because of the tone you used, but I think there's a good point hidden underneath.
Trump's account is probably specially marked for two- or even three-person lock, to prevent "rogue account termination" as has already happened. So the questions quickly turn to odd angles: how many other high-profile, politically (and/or economically) influencal accounts are equally protected? What criteria are used to assign the account this level of protection? Should this kind of account lock mechanism be more widely available? If yes, to whom?
I personally suspect that Twitter will eventually have to follow Google's route for high-profile accounts and identity management in general.[0] If people are using Twitter as their personal press office, the company has no choice but to accommodate.
That was the point really. Was trying to post objectively, tbh. Didn't realise it might be seen as snarky, or anything of the like. I really did wonder what it might mean, if Trump's Twitter account was subject to extra protection.
If that's proven to be the case, that in itself is quite a big issue. Biden, as a leading political rival absolutely should have a right to similar protections if they exist.
Indeed, as a democracy, anyone should have access to the same level of protection. Or at the very least, all verified accounts.
That page looks nothing like the kind of security measures you're talking about. It's for people who care about good opsec, who carry around hardware keys, and think 2FA isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity. But what you really need is someone to stop the takeover of high-profile accounts run by people who pick the worst possible passwords: https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/10/11/17964848/kanye-west...
Right, good point. I'm relying on my memory here, but when the advanced protection program was first launched, I recall that one of the benefits of it for journalists and high-risk individuals was that changing recovery options (email address, phone number) would have always required a manual review and a confirmation round by someone at Google.
I do think that Google should subject passwords for accounts in the program to HIBP checks. By this point every major browser provides at least some kind of password manager functionality. It'll probably never be the same quality as a stand-alone, fully focused password manager product, but it must be an improvement over forcing to memorise passwords.
