> In order so that they could do ... what, exactly?
They can either say "Thanks for telling us. We're fixing the locks. There a X thousand locks, and we expect it to take Y weeks to fix them Please consider delaying release of this informtion until after then" - in which case he's done the responsible thing and can chose what to do.
Or they can say "We know, there's nothing we can do, don't tell anyone" in which case he's done the responsible thing and can decide what to do.
"Someone might sue me for doing the right thing" is a pretty thin excuse. There's a reason it's called "doing the right thing" instead of "doing what's easiest for you."
Say I'm a lawyer, and I find out that in order to help a client of mine I have to present evidence that's extremely embarrassing to a close friend of mine. I'm am professionally and ethically obligated to present that evidence.
Now, security professionals don't have, and probably shouldn't have, fiduciary responsibilities like that. However, industries set up codes of ethics for their members precisely because there's a difference between "what's best for me right now" and "what's the right thing to do."
If the idea is to embarrass the industry into fixing these problems, an article in Forbes does a pretty good job of that.
They can either say "Thanks for telling us. We're fixing the locks. There a X thousand locks, and we expect it to take Y weeks to fix them Please consider delaying release of this informtion until after then" - in which case he's done the responsible thing and can chose what to do.
Or they can say "We know, there's nothing we can do, don't tell anyone" in which case he's done the responsible thing and can decide what to do.