Given that ignorance is defined as the lack of knowledge, it is unlikely that anyone can be wilfully ignorant. The real question which the artickle does not nswer is whether those surveyed 1) knew they were not supposed to divulge these details but did it anyway
2) whether or not the companies in which they work have computer security education and security policies. Prhaps the term that renman should have used is were they ignorant or did they wilfully disregard what they knew. The problem renman misses here is that if the researchers had been criminals, the impact is not only on the individuals that give away confidential information, but that in so doing they jeopardize the rest of us as their computers turn into spambots, their money gets stolen causing bank profits to drop until the banks raise rates to compendate. As the article says, unless these people are troglodytes, they have to have heard about security, and they must be pushed to practice good security. Ignorance is only an excuse the first time, and I rather doubt that at least most of them just went for the candy bar...that's not ignorance, that is stupidity.