This feels like a very dated metaphor. When my older brother introduced me Napster, was I actually rifling through Lars Ulrich’s wallet and shaking out mp3s?

In this case, a clone of the wallet has been preserved for all and sundry to peruse. Is it really wrong as a genuinely curious person not to pretend it isn’t there?

There’s a lot to be said about privacy on the Internet. I don’t think there’s much to be gained by attacking those who, out of genuine curiosity, don’t abide by the same polite fictions as the rest of us. I dont like browsing random strangers’ PII. I tend to hope those who do show due respect. And don’t see any sign of malice in GP.

IP theft isn't the same thing as privacy violation.

Not the same ethically. I’m not arguing that. But it’s the same mechanics. Browsing a dump floating around on the Internet isn’t the same as stealing someone’s personal info.

The data is already there. You’re not depriving anyone else of it, and as long as you’re not hosting nor seeding it, you’re not sharing it, either. Most of us pretend not to see it, but it’s there regardless.

Privacy violation can incur costs to the victim each time. Not only upon whatever you decide to declare was an event that made subsequent violation easier, but also upon those subsequent events.

The information is spread all across the internet. By reading this thread you can see people's "private" conversations. There is no point in judging the people who see the information once its public. Its like walking down the street with no clothes and then getting mad at people who looked.

The information might be viewable from the public, but there was still an expectation of privacy at the start of this. It isn't a naked person walking down the street, it is someone getting naked in their own home and you're peering through their window. Neither the legal status of that action nor other people also being able to see in the window makes it morally justifiable to violate the original expectation of privacy.