Wouldn't it have been far nobler to approach the banks affected by the exploit with these findings rather than publishing schematics for the exploit into the public domain?
Plus it's likely it's already being used secretly by those with nefarious purposes, publishing just means the average person knowns about it - it's not likely to change how many actually use it.
The author of the article at least believes that it is a well-known flaw so responsible disclosure isn't really applicable.
I get the impression that this has captured the public mood of "sticking it to the bankers", when really Cambridge have gone about this one the wrong way.
At no point do I get the indication that the MPhil student was acting in a way that was 'irresponsible' - I don't know how you have come to that conclusion.
In fact, many would argue that responsible disclosure is anything but, since it has the tendancy tp maximize the amount of time the public is at risk.
All of this is ignoring the fact that this paper wasnt even disclosure at al...
given the letter says that this is a known vulnerability