I think there are those on this thread (incl me) who are neither triggered nor worked up. (Though I can certainly understand why anyone whose most basic privacy was violated could be triggered.) I think ideally everyone should have the right to choose what info to reveal to whom and under what circumstances. Don't courts often rule in cases regarding the reasonable expectation of privacy? It really isn't an issue of "it's public, so what's the problem?" because many actions are technically public, yet are engaged in assuming a reasonable expectation of privacy.

A T's credentials, conduct record, rating is part of the professional persona whose intent is to be available in the public interest. Social connections, family names and details, personal financial data, etc is inherently private information that carries no intention of public interest. That the info may be found through public means doesn't change the relevance upon which the principle is based.

(And I do think the internet changes the act of searching in fundamental ways. To go to a court house or city hall and make inquiries is itself a public action that carries a risk of self-disclosure, in addition to an investment of time and effort. To some extent, that caused the risk to be shared somewhat by both the searcher and the object of the search and acted as a disincentive to search. Connecting on-line in your jammies is a fundamentally private act, and so does not pose a sharing of disclosure risk. That can make it feel sneaky to engage in, and more of a threat to the one searched because there's no witness to the activity. )

For the OP, she's uncomfortable with some aspects of her actions and experiencing negative feelings about it, so exploring them seems a healthy choice to make for herself, rather than in service to any principle.