wait, how much money did he pay out to whom? what would be the point of not listing who is being paid nor what they're being paid except for deception?
Names, yes; $, no.
[1]: https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/hall-of-fame/reward... [2]: https://www.facebook.com/whitehat/
http://www.nilsjuenemann.de/2012/12/news-about-googles-vulne...
To be clear - you think it's fine to cite the announcement of an undisclosed amount of money being paid to an undisclosed list of people as proof of their status as a good actor, yet you require concrete evidence that they are being deceptive for nefarious reasons to question his motives.
google == irresponsible ?
http://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/vulnerability...
If you conduct any sort of business transaction with someone (and that's exactly what this is) a good business would assume that the transaction is private unless other arrangements are made with the other party. It's common sense and common courtesy.
If Mr. Dotcom asked first and then publicized the names, that's fine. If he made it a requirement of collecting the bounty, he's also within his rights. However, if he gave them the money and then disclosed their identities without asking them, it's would be an unprofessional thing to do. Not unforgivable, just unprofessional. Some people value privacy and anonymity. That's their prerogative.