The police have other ways of catching people doing crime. We don't need to give up all of our privacy and rights for them to do their job. If you think having privacy or rights stops the police from catching criminals then you are quite mistaken. If the police can catch el chapo and the rest of the drug cartel bosses then any other criminal can be taken down regardless of the technology they're using.

I would agree with you if the debate were “should we abolish SSL so we can MITM all internet traffic to catch more criminals?”

In that example, there is legitimate argument that SSL encrypted connections to more good than harm (it makes logging into your online bank possible on public Wifi, along with 1000’s of other examples like it).

But I’ve still yet to see a clear argument for absolute internet anonymity for anything that would benefit the average person (yet, I can think of dozens of ways it harms people).

It’s very likely that I’m just not aware of the legitimate (practical) use cases of TOR.

Anything the government knows about you COULD become (and in many nations, already are) a liability. Even things that are completely harmless.

On top of that, let's say that you do become a suspect of a crime you didn't commit. Every little shred of information that can be found is going to be used to paint a false narrative against you. Why would you want anybody to have ANY information on you at that point.

Surely you've heard of "the right to remain silent" and "pleading the 5th". Anonymity online is the internet version of that.

Sometimes the crime is pointing out that the police are violent thugs, or that your government is interring people in "reeducation" camps.

It's true that anonymity is a double-edged sword, but it's better than having no blade when one is wielded against you.

> But I’ve still yet to see a clear argument for absolute internet anonymity for anything that would benefit the average person (yet, I can think of dozens of ways it harms people).

anonymity doesn't make it impossible to be held accountable for your actions. people tend to (unintentionally) dox themselves without any outside help. what it does is make it a lot harder for law enforcement to catch people without specifically targeting them and investing resources.

I know you're an upstanding, respectable citizen who would never do anything illegal, but just think of privacy/anonymity as a hedge against that tiny chance that the government might actually make an unreasonable law.

There are over a billion people under a particular authoritarian regime that could potentially benefit from practical use of this technology.

> it makes logging into your online bank possible on public Wifi

It makes internet banking possible, period. Cleartext banking, in any public Internet context, would be simply unworkable.

I disagree, authentication is not tied to encryption at all.

Why would we care about the benefit of the average person? How is that even an argument? Like imagine forbidding to publish some books or music, because we somehow decided that they might not benefit the average person.

> I’ve still yet to see a clear argument for absolute internet anonymity for anything that would benefit the average person

Absolute anonymity should be the default. There is no need to justify it. It's the government that needs to justify it's need to know stuff about specific persons.

It is possible to deface or alter the VIN number, steal a license plate, and rig a car for remote control.

If you commit, or attempt mass murder this way, you'll probably be caught due to the amount of resources a law enforcement agency will spend investigating such a crime. If you put up an anonymous website distributing child pornography, but you're not the one producing it, law enforcement will spend several orders of magnitude less resources investigating that crime.

It's called an investigation and it worked for hundreds of years without the internet.