The world is full of sensitive information that's basically protected on the honor system, for the same reason the world is full of unlocked doors: because we assume some assholes won't come around and abuse the situation.
AT&T had a duty of care to protect their Data which they signally failed to do. Then some asshole finds out and makes that situation public. He did not do so in a responsible manner but four years is a long time to get for being an asshole.
If that is commonplace HN is going to be a smaller forum
Weev was convicted, by a jury, of fraud in connection with personal information. The jury believed he intended to sell the e-mail addresses he collected to people who would use them for various nefarious purposes. Given that he claimed he was going to do so in IRC conversations, it's really hard for you to sit there and argue that the jury was unreasonable in reaching this conclusion, and that all they are really punishing him for is blowing the lid on AT&T.
What you're doing is trying to create a particular narrative about Weev's intentions, but ignoring that the jury in this case heard and rejected this narrative.
Whilst I see that there are times and crimes it is viable, it's just a vicious circle.
He intended to commit a crime, but did not? And so he got jail?
I admit I am taking this too far on too little reading of the case (any links to original docs would be useful) but intention is real flimsy.