They might not want it, but I do not see how it is harmful, it does not affect them at all after all. They could as well live their whole lives without knowing that their images are online. It is pretty similar to piracy if you think about it. Some people thinking they are entitled to dictate if and how certain numbers are used and distributed.
You are essentially advocating for a society without a right to privacy which while logically consistent is an extremist position not shared by the vast majority of people
I would consider a society in which you are not allowed to communicate with others without the government getting access to be one without a right to privacy. It's interesting how we can come to polar opposite conclusions about the implications of this technology.
(It seems that the difference may be in what exactly we consider to be a privacy violation. I would say that in the child-pornography case, the victim's privacy has been destroyed the moment the pictures have been observed and recorded by the abuser, and further reproduction is not a privacy violation because there is no privacy in the pictures left to violate. Since Tor and co. have no impact on the ability of a child pornographer to make the initial recording, they are an unalloyed good for privacy.)
> further reproduction is not a privacy violation because there is no privacy in the pictures left to violate
Is this honestly how you'd feel about footage of someone you know being raped?? It should not be illegal to distribute it...? Can you explain precisely what you think the law should be?
