Are you even remotely familiar with the facts of the case?

weev claims to have received the data from an unknown source.

He then has AT&T informed through a third-party.

After that has happened and AT&T has fixed the vulnerability, he gives the data to a journalist and deletes it.

The journalist then writes about it and includes a small, badly redacted portion of it.

So, in summary weev did not publish the data in any meaningful sense and did make sure that the flaw was fixed before going public. What exactly about this is unethical?