It's not irresponsible at all if the story is true. Bloomberg has no responsibility to Supermicro's stock (or anyone else's). They also aren't responsible for protecting classified information.
But the story probably isn't true.
But the story probably isn't true.
To make an analogy: What if a newspaper was given sensitive personal information about someone that was legal to publish, but could have damaging effects to that person and the population as a whole if published too soon? Do newspapers have a civic responsibility to hold off on publishing information that would only be damaging to everyone (at least until it's safe to do so)?
I don't think they did anything immoral by publishing (unless they believed what they wrote to be false).
That's a rather extreme claim, isn't it?
Are you saying that governments should widely publish all defense research? Are you saying governments should widely publish and distribute military plans before putting them into action? Are you saying governments should publish the locations of all defensive and offensive weaponry, as well as constant position updates of all military submarines?
That kind of openness would be suicidal. I agree that governments should encourage transparency, but not when that transparency would endanger lives etc.
It's the involvement of Elemental (now AWS Elemental) that really sticks out to me. Back in 2015 they were a 200 person startup with government clients. Perfect target for an attack. How else do you explain Elemental's involvement? If they weren't hacked, they would be too small of a company to even be worth mentioning. Bloomberg wouldn't have bothered.