You have to set aside first whether or not this is Satoshi Nakamoto. Assume it was the victim of a terrible crime, or assume it was the perpetrator of that terrible crime. If you start saying it's okay for one to be outed, but not the other, you're already on shaky grounds of having to somehow define which is which in what case. You can argue "we can decide that on a case-by-case scenario", but then you'll inevitably overstep the boundaries. Doing a mea culpa and saying you're moving the boundary a bit is great for the future, but doesn't negate the overstepping that has already occurred.
So, that out of the way.. I think at the heart of it are two things:
1. The author's suggestion that this information is already public; and, given that she did indeed find the name through public records and went from there, one could argue that if it's already public, it doesn't matter that she published it all conveniently in one place.
Or does it? Considering the information was indeed public, but nobody bothered with it until this article, and considering the response it has gotten (overwhelmingly: great journalism in finding the person, questionable journalism at best in publishing the details), clearly it does matter when you start aggregating all of those bits and pieces into a single document; doxxing.
Some countries even have laws against doing that, fully acknowledging that the individual bits and pieces may well be public, but that aggregating them is not allowed.
2. Whether or not these details added anything to the story besides sensationalism. I.e. the photo of the house which included house number; would the story have been worse, or less believable, etc. if that had been blurred out? While the internet sleuthing machine would undoubtedly have found the address without that bit of information eventually, it would certainly have taken substantially longer. Imagine next that there were no picture of the house, merely a description that the person lived in just an ordinary house. Now the internet sleuthing machine (and that includes other media) have a monumental task ahead of them; it could be any house in the city mentioned. Would you have taken the author's word for it, though? The evidence that they had found the person they were after would have to be a lot stronger to lend weight to words than does a picture - human nature tends to do that.
Think of interviewees who agree upon the interview as long as they are not identified and are made unrecognizable (silhouette shots at best, voice warbled). This could be anybody making up any sort of story. The reason we often trust these interviews anyway is because what facts said can be verified, and because we tend to trust the interviewer based on their reputation.
We generally don't say "well unless I can see the person's face and hear what they sound like, I'm going to dismiss this interview".
You have to think to yourself how low the trust in the author of this piece has to be, and how shaky the facts on the actual subject material ("is this person Satoshi Nakamoto?") , that they saw no other recourse than to release personal details that could be verified instead ("we don't know truly if this is Satoshi Nakamoto, but it is 'A Guy', and 'A Guy' can be found here, go ahead and look him up for proof that it is 'A Guy'").
Reputable investigative journalists usually allow people who don't want to be found to remain 'not found', no matter how much bits and pieces of public information end up pointing to them; be that victims or perpetrators of terrible crimes. Without that, they're just the next doxxing TMZ, chasing people downs streets with cameras and pummeling them with leading questions.
Note that I'm just as opposed to doxxing of the author in question. While it seems like just deserts, it's really just perpetuating the problem. Rather than attacking the author, it would be more interesting to get an in-depth interview with her on her motives, thoughts (before/during/after), etc.