That's one way to put it.

Another way is: there are two options. Either we have strong anonimity on the Internet, or the authorities have the power to catch criminals. Which one do you think would win in a vote?

> Which one do you think would win in a vote?

I don't know if this was a rhetorical question with an implied and obvious answer, but to me it actually is a curiosity, I have no idea which one would win a vote.

I'm guessing you are shocked that Nixon and Trump won the presidency of the United States?

Trump won the Presidency, but not by winning more votes, which makes his win an odd issue to raise in a discussion of what would win a vote.

Q.E.D.

Those who paid attention knew that Trump needed to win votes in specific states, not on the Upper East Side or in the Bay Area just like those who pay attention realize that only places like Bay Area or Upper East Side would have people voting for anonymity vs. ability of police to solve crimes.

I have no idea what your question has to do with my comment.

false dichotomy.

Could you explain? I mean, if the government has the ability to catch criminals that think they are anonymous then how exactly is true anonymity of non-criminals maintained? To be clear, of the two evils I'd prefer having the risk of a few bad people getting their way than to trust the "good government" to always protect me by knowing everything about me, but this is far from a trivial subject. In some ways this is analogous to the issue of the right to bear arms. There's always a tension between safety and liberty and it's not always clear where the optimal line should be drawn.

Everyone knows if you want true anonymity when conducting criminal activity you don't use a service with a dollar trail straight to you. You use a system you've gained unauthorized access to and you doctor or delete the logs. Criminals have no qualms illegally accessing other people's systems, so it's not logical that giving non-criminal users access to true anonymity would give the criminal users any capabilities they don't already have. In fact there could be benefits to non-criminal users of such a system possibly shielding them from certain types of criminal activity, so it is not even true that society inherently has more to gain by prohibiting truly anonymous networks.

Point taken regarding criminals using criminal methods to gain anonymity, and I have little doubt that often the real agenda behind government action in this field is accumulation of power and control over the population in the guise of protecting it. However, like with guns, when there is an abundance of them and they can be easily and legally obtained, you will probably end up with more casualties by criminals who would otherwise perhaps not have seen the investment (and risk) in obtaining one worthwhile. To be clear, I am for everyone's freedom for total anonymity and believe it is a faster way to a better world than trusting governments with too much power - it's just that I think that it doesn't come without a price.

How do you catch criminals like these (in this article) if you have strong anonimity?

You can't. Any network having strong anonymity needs to have zero negative effects on the real world by design. The Internet is not that. It is inextricably intertwined with huge areas of our 'real' world. So strong anonymity on the Internet will never happen, politically. At most there'll be some subnet like Tor or Freenet and even those aren't immune from legislation.

What kinds of crime?