I always assumed that some actors had this capability and acted accordingly. The existence of a publicly available tool merely democratizes this power. Anyone seeking complete and perpetual anonymity should have been practicing better opsec from the beginning.
This argument, which the creator of the tool also uses, strikes me as essentially, “I’m going to harm you to show you that there is potential for you to be harmed”. To make a crude analogy, what if I punched you in the face to demonstrate that you should consider learning kung fu? Or perhaps to indicate that, if a corporation wanted to, they could hire people to assault you and there would be little you could do abou…
OP and creator assume that attempts at creating privacy online are always under active attack. The threat environment already exists. Publication of this tool does not meaningfully change the threat environment.
Some more analogous situations might be:
* Publicizing that police do not quickly respond to 911 calls for assault or break and entry in certain neighborhoods * Selling lockpicks and publicizing how to pick standard tumbler locks * Publicizing which bike locks can be cut with hand tools
The real fundamental disagreement is on the assumption of if your privacy is already under attack by competent actors.