[fpig]

I mean a bad actor can easily use stolen/free wireless with a randomized mac on a machine that’s used for nothing else and not access any “usual” services while doing it.

This is more about ordinary people maintaining privacy in their normal daily activities, in ways that aren’t too inconvenient to use 24/7.

If a bad actor has the knowhow to build a custom platform they sure have the ability to access the internet in a way where they can’t be found by IP.

Governments still like to push anti-privacy laws because they help catch non-technical criminals who don’t put in a serious effort to hide. This is why they hate “built in” privacy protections in consumer software and demand ways around it, because they help protect even technically illiterate criminals.

What I'm trying to say is, the important question is how much do we want to erase privacy for 99% of people who use normal consumer software in order to help police catch the ~1% or whatever the percent of criminals is that also use normal consumer software, and just happen to also be criminals. The 0.01% of people that are criminals and have the resources and knowhow to actively try to avoid detection by building their own systems are not going to be caught in trivial ways (like tracking their IP to their apartment, vpn or no vpn, or tracking them through correlation from using their personal social media account from the same connection they perform illegal activity from) anyway so they don't matter.