The author's contention was that notorious public heretics, not those with privately dissenting views, were the subjects of the Inquisition. If the former had their "lives laid bare," it was with the intent of determining the origins of their heresies and to prevent the ideas from further public dissemination.
So then it's your contention that such probing of a person is acceptable?
Granted, I'm not one that subscribes to the idea that the Inquisitors were Monsters, many were devoutly religious men who looked at what they were doing as noble and honorable.
However, that being said, while the Inquisitors were prohibited from causing permanent physical damage to get a penitant to confess their heresy, including time limits on torments, many instances of "crossing the line" did occur.
Also, let's not forget that one option an Inquisitor had was to simply turn a penitant over to the Secular Authorities, who, in an effort not to offend the Office of the Inquisition would almost certainly brutally torture and execute those in their charge.
Face it, the very act of relaxing an unrepentant Heretic directly violates the very notion of Free Will.
As for the idea that the general populous happily went along with the Inquisition, let's face facts, simply failing to attend an auto was enough to have a person brought before a Tribunal under a charge of suspision of Heresy.
Or worse, even questioning the Inquisition itself, in any manner, was considered a crime.