Oh absolutely, the author is very much an enabler of Foos' behaviour: especially considering it continued well after disclosing his secret. It does raise an interesting question about, what could the author have done legally? Did he ever seek advice from his lawyer about this matter? Is there any precedent that would give him cause to disclose or not? I imagine he expected to be sued by Foos for breaching the contract (which he did not seem to have a copy of, and perhaps neither did Foos in the end!), but there must be some whistleblower laws that could have protected him. Morally, well... is Foos correct in his assertion that nobody was harmed as they were unaware of it? Does publishing now "past the statute of limitations", which I know for some places starts once the crime becomes public, open him up to being sued by past guests? They would certainly be able to argue that he knew publication would cause harm from his past statements, so the choice has now... caused harm!