Now, you can say that's the exception -- and it may be. Or you can say that "provisions would be made" in an information-restriction strategy to allow special cases like that to get through. Operating in reality, however, will tell you that Special Cases means you have to get a license. On the site, that would equate to being approved for security information by others. I think that's not the kind of thing we'd want.
You can't gauge appropriate by the question. You can't gauge intent by the question either.
Should they share it with anyone who asks regardless of how much it looks like the person is intending to do harm to self or others with no indication there is a valid reason behind it?Again, I did not say you should encourage destructive acts. I'm saying that if you do not know the intent, then it's your job to ask if you're going to be concerned about how it's used. Even if you ask, you may not find out. You only hope the other person will be honest.
If freak had the presence of mind necessary to say that he was doing security testing, who would have questioned that? And who's to say that freak isn't just the first illegitimately intentioned person to screw up and be honest? Who's to say that there haven't been plenty of other, less active monks amongst us who might have been a little smarter and a little subtler?
Who will continue to answer questions related to security issues when they will be held responsible -- even if it's only by their peers and no legal body -- for the questioner's intent? If fewer people answer, where will that knowledge go?
You are what you think.