the article mentions "we retrieved only parts of the datasets rather than downloading them in full", so a charitable interpretation might be that for each identified source candidate, they spot checked (or had a model spot check) a few individual records to have incontrovertible proof of breach of privacy, and then ran an aggregate count query to gauge the extent of breach. I think that would be fairly in line with "white hat" behavior that's doing the smallest amount of extra work towards a solid proof and clearly not taking the obvious and easy next step of downloading the remainder that would be required for self enrichment. Difficult to argue that there is an intention of malice.
A bad actor would be downloading /all/ the data and disclosing it to no one, and selling it while obscuring the source.
That said I agree that that certainly might fall afoul of the letter of whatever local laws apply, and certainly prosecutors can also be over-zealous in their interpretations. So personally I would never risk doing something that comes up against that line, from a personal risk POV. But idk if it's fair to argue that this is NOT good faith.
Then at least you are under and NDA and there is no way for the company to spin it that you were a bad guy.
The numbers mentioned are pretty serious: "We found records containing email addresses in 10,560 tables across 7,403 of the 24,664 websites (30%)."
To me - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that reads like 'we downloaded at least parts of 10560 tables'.
If you actually want change and things to be secured, this post might cause that. I dont understand the energy you are putting into convincing us thats a bad thing.
Companies respond in different ways to disclosures, by independent researchers and by people under contract. You are absolutely right that in many cases the findings end up in a drawer. This is a real pity. Invariably those will sooner or later be exploited by the bad guys and then the company has a serious problem: they will have to show their homework and if it is found that - at least in Europe - they were aware of the issue but did not take action it may well have the effect of changing a warning into a fine and a fine into a larger one.
yeah, good question - agreed that probably a lot safer to do this with explicit permission, though like others mentioned the tradeoff is that the company can cover it all up before it's clear just how bad the problem ever was and then say "we fixed a minor issue". I wouldn't risk my neck over that, but some people might I guess.
> To me - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that reads like 'we downloaded at least parts of 10560 tables'.
To me it sounds like they downloaded one or two records each from 10,560 tables and confirmed that those records contained emails. But you're right, I'm not sure it's very clear from the description.