This exchange by far has been the most illuminating for me. I think I've done a decent job of explaining the root comment, but as of now the paragraph has a do

This exchange by far has been the most illuminating for me. I think I've done a decent job of explaining the root comment, but as of now the paragraph has a down vote to -4. So, I'm very curious: Is it the suggestion that Tor operators take some moral high ground in the case of users of their Tor infrastructure who are participating in the trafficking of children, or terrorists who are utilizing Tor near-anonymity to prepare for their next attack? Or, is it the idea that I am suggesting that any involvement be had at all? Because, while I started the proposition as pointing to cooperation with law enforcement as the right thing to do if approached for questioning as a Tor operator when malicious persons are bring tracked on your network, I offered alternatives to that such as booting off the users, ejecting their data, so forth. Does one simply create tools like Tor and then walk away, let the tools do what they do, and let others be responsible for dealing with the negative aspects? I think this is an interesting conundrum and parallel in some fashion to the gun industry defense arguments here in America. Keep in mind, I am a builder of Tor servers - it is a software application, and like a gun, not illegal here in America. This difficult idea I'm presenting here of having some ownership of who uses your Tor infrastructure is not something I present lightly. This is a valuable conversation and I'd love to hear more perspectives.