Does it matter if an anomysing service advertises itself as allowing free speech to users in countries where free speech is censored, compared to a service that advertises itself as catering to the mafias of the world, ensuring their crimes are untraceable ? In the later case, it makes it very easy to think of the sercice operator as an accomplice to crime. But if the primary purpose of a service is legitimate, should the service operator be held liable if there is *some* misuse which cannot be prevented by the service operator ? In my opinion, the operator should remain immune until the police shows up with a warrant and the operator refuses to cooperate. Tor exit nodes are not that different from payphones or disposable pre-paid cellular service where the wireless operator has no verifiable identity/address for the purchasor of the service. Are phone companies held liable because the mafia uses a payphone to plan their crimes knowing that they can't trace calls to an individual ?