To clarify, I'm contesting this statement:
> Perhaps a better use of this soapbox, instead of lambasting the researchers, would be to raise awareness of the fact that what you put onto the Internet is public.
on the grounds that, even if we were talking entirely about information that is already 100% 'public', there are ethical concerns with making already-public information more readily accessible (and therefore easier to use for nefarious purposes). Doxxing is an easy example because most people generally agree that it crosses some sort of ethical line, and there are plenty of clear examples where doxxed information has been used for nefarious purposes (ie, to harass, stalk, and/or abuse the victim).
In other words, I'm not saying that all of the information in this particular case was already public. I'm saying that focusing on that distinction is a distraction from the underlying issue.