This is a weak defence at best and a huge risk to whoever acts as an end node. What if someone further up the chain is downloading child pornography? Do you really want to be protecting their IP, relaying their traffic and sending your own IP in the clear?
Given that Tor has been available for a while, are there examples of maintainers of Tor end nodes being held accountable for the traffic they pass on behalf of others?
This seems bred the same philosophy as holding an ISP accountable for the traffic of its customers, or holding the administrator of 4chan accountable for what is posted on there. It seems tenuous.
Maybe I'm missing something. How many jurisdictions are there now where an unknowing facilitator can be held accountable for the criminal acts of those he is facilitating?
Either way, I'm not fond of this philosophy of scaring everyone into the clear simply to avoid gruesome labeling.
I think it's a matter of numbers, though. If TOR (or equivalent) was as popular as BT, even the police would realise it is pointless.
It doesn't become pointless. It merely becomes a tool which can be selectively enforced against whomever those enforcing the rules don't happen to like.