There really isn't much to debate. Your stance is very myopic and makes assumptions that fail in a global context.
For example, you assume the police are legitimate and not the tools of an oppressive government.
For example, you are completely ignoring non-"malicious" purposes for disguising origin, say whistleblowing.
Finally, you are equating providing a legitimate service that may be used for a crime with actual facilitation of crime. We should lock up telephone company execs on this theory.
There's a lot to debate. If you're running a TOR node, you have child porn traversing your system. You also have a whistleblower's traffic who might be beaten or tortured if found.
Does the existence of the latter negate the former?
To claim that is an answered question is myopic to me.
Also, Criminal activity has repeatedly fallen the 3 letter agency attacks. So the claim that criminals are just getting away with stuff is also false. Its harder, but not unbreakable.
I agree that it fails in some countries, yes, but to say it fails in a global context... The same argument could be made for the opposing viewpoint; police are more often legitimate than illegitimate, and on telephone company execs: if they purposely assign the identity of someone else to a person who then uses this identity for wrongdoing.. Yes, possibly? Otherwise, it's a company, and doesn't fall under the complaint.
Complaint: Individuals as tor exit nodes presents a fake identity as opposed to a lack of an identity. Fake identity seems problematic.
- Internet freedom around the world declined in 2016 for the sixth consecutive year.
- Two-thirds of all internet users — 67 percent — live in countries where criticism of the government, military, or ruling family are subject to censorship.
- Social media users face unprecedented penalties, as authorities in 38 countries made arrests based on social media posts over the past year. Globally, 27 percent of all internet users live in countries where people have been arrested for publishing, sharing, or merely “liking” content on Facebook.
For example, you assume the police are legitimate and not the tools of an oppressive government.
For example, you are completely ignoring non-"malicious" purposes for disguising origin, say whistleblowing.
Finally, you are equating providing a legitimate service that may be used for a crime with actual facilitation of crime. We should lock up telephone company execs on this theory.