None. Notice that the photographer was OUTSIDE. He didn't remove any property from the restaurant. He did not physically enter the restaurant.
Part of the problem, and I think you'll agree with me on this, is that these metaphors breakdown because, when talking about information and systems, the notions of property are much more complicated. What if, for example, the photographer photographed a sheet of paper with 100 usernames and passwords to gmail accounts, or bank account records and then mailed it out for everyone to see?
He should probably have gone to the authorities first, not the media.
The sign is definitely copyrighted as a creative work, and some sort of argument based on competitive advantage would certainly be brought out in regards to why taking the photograph has wronged the restaurant owner. These things don't make constructive sense, they're just convenient to invoke when it's time to conjure up some justification for persecution of the undesirables. Fortunately for the photographer, that window is not a computer network and the average person understands that having rats in a restaurant is wrong.
You are right that the public understands rats in restaurants more than they understand insecure web apps.
But the public also understands that things visible through the front window of a business on a street are not private or secret. (And I know someone is itching to type that AT&T is just a window and they just served up exactly what Weev wanted, but I'm too tired to respond to such nonsense.)
"Bringing a serious problem to the public's attention" are not magic words that make someone's actions legal.
The only people who think weev's actions aren't illegal are people stuck thinking the laws make sense and trying to reconcile them with their morals. The real question is whether what he did is wrong, and if so, what level of punishment is appropriate.
I'd say that a list of email addresses isn't actually private information worthy of legal protection. We've just got these ridiculous laws calling widely-available datums "sensitive" because banks (et al) are trying to pretend that your "identity" is somehow being "stolen" rather than that they're simply being defrauded. So a simple trespass with questionable intent has been turned into a several year felony based on these toxic bits that aren't actually important enough to necessitate serious audits or redundant controls.
Frankly the highly fucked up part of these laws are the amount of time involved, both what defendants are pressured to plea bargain with, and the actual amounts that get sentenced. It's very easy to say that three years in a cage is reasonable from the comfort of your chair. We can debate what should be ultimately illegal etc, but with these kind of sentences we're basically talking about destroying someone's existing life for a non-violent action with minor damages that a different company wouldn't even press charges for.
Part of the problem, and I think you'll agree with me on this, is that these metaphors breakdown because, when talking about information and systems, the notions of property are much more complicated. What if, for example, the photographer photographed a sheet of paper with 100 usernames and passwords to gmail accounts, or bank account records and then mailed it out for everyone to see?
He should probably have gone to the authorities first, not the media.