Doesn't AWS also have the same problem? Someone could upload encrypted illegal content, then later law enforcement could discover the key. Why hasn't AWS gotten in trouble for that yet?
No large cloud provider allows anonymous usage. They take down content on request and assist law enforcement in catching the non-anonymous people doing illegal things on their platforms.
Okay, bad example. AWS is a paid service so obviously they have more information about their users than most. What about Dropbox or OneDrive? Both of those services allow files to be stored and shared with no requirement to identify yourself when you're creating an account, beyond providing an email address.
Both Dropbox and OneDrive scan your content to determine if it matches known illegal content (be it illegal pornography, DRM content, etc) and will remove it and remove you from their service.
If someone pre-encrypts data and then uploads that to Dropbox, it gets more complicated and AFAIK involves more of monitoring the IP addresses that things are coming from and/or being shared to.
Same argument for Bitcoin, cash etc. You have a thousand degrees of slippery slope in what constitutes "enable". Does paying your workers in cash for tips enable tax evasion?
Also, I'm not sure what scenario in which you would be able to find the encryption key, yet not have access to the wallet controlling the contracts? Even if you did, I'm not sure why hosts could not assist in cancelling contracts in a similar fashion to cloud providers taking down content on request.
