> Then the person who harmed him will be prosecuted ... NY Times isn’t calling for violence.

And the negligent driver also didn't mean to cause injury, yet we have laws on negligent driving.

If the NY Times would have known that harm could come to someone by having information published, they should consult and/or take measures to prevent that harm (or at least, take measures to minimize it).

Consider the following hypothetical: you have a safe in your home with a substantial sum of money in it, and you consider its presence, the location and contents private knowledge. However, someone uses publicly available information to infer the rough location and contents of your safe and makes it public. You are robbed shortly after. What percentage of responsibility lies with that person?

So if someone broke into your house, murdered you, and stole all your money, you would die peacefully, knowing that the thief will be prosecuted?

Harm from exposure can take a lot of shapes and sizes that go beyond the physical and the potential prosecution that someone may be held accountable I find weak.

And yet they would be responsible.