I think the point is to clearly shift the moral hazard away from the provider to the user. The user may not uphold the agreement, but then they are clearly the morally wrong party.
Why not simply give the moral hazard to the user by default? If I give someone a pen and paper and they use it to write a letter ordering a terrorist attack, am I morally responsible for the attack simply because I didn't get them to agree to use it lawfully?
Isn't there some meta rule about the first world countries law systems (us excluded) that the only crimes you are responsible for are the ones you personally commited?
Few things: Firstly, this is about civil cases, not crimes. Secondly, the wrongdoing here is allowing someone else to use your internet connection to perform illegal actions, not those actions themselves. Thirdly, in any law system I can think of there are crimes you can commit by literally doing nothing (neglect). For example, in Germany it's a crime to know about a planned murder and not do anything about it.
