There's a lot of research that could be performed if we were willing to generate data without due regard for the inherent downsides.

Saying research requires data is just insufficient justification in this case.

> I don't see why he could not release it to the public for researchers to use.

Because the collateral damage doesn't justify it. That aspect of it seems to be little more than a side note to him.

He could quietly and securely give the data to established researchers.

Or, he could very publicly release a torrent for everyone's use, with almost no concern for how it'll be used.

There's a massive difference there and the likely potential reasons behind his decision to do the latter leave very little room for one to make favorable judgements about either his motives, or his ability to responsibly mitigating risk.

I'm sorry if you believe any of that to be ad hominem, but it just isn't.

> Usernames may have a high correlation with passwords and thus are useful.

And that's precisely why the likelihood of collateral damage stemming directly from his actions is much higher than it should reasonably be in this instance.

At some point what you're giving up to further research isn't worth the tradeoff. He's selling innocent bystanders up the river to further his own cause, with little evidence that he's done everything possible to limit collateral damage.

I don't understand why this line of thinking is a hard sell here.

When a government or corporation releases lightly-redacted, personally-identifying information about people, the outcry is (rightly) massive. White knight does it and, well, to question his motives is ad hominem?

Really?