I think you&#x27;re conflating two different points. Just because providing privacy is Tor&#x27;s intended purpose doesn&#x27;t mean it&#x27;s reasonable to assume it provides privacy in the 4th amendment sense, when it still involves sending your data to Tor nodes. The argument is that public IP&#x27;s are inherently not private because you have to give that information up to a separate entity to make any sort of communication. I&#x27;d wager that&#x27;s the &quot;vulnerability&quot; they&#x27;re referencing - That you don&#x27;t know who is running the Tor nodes, and by extension can&#x27;t assume your IP will stay private if you&#x27;re freely giving away your IP address to them.<p>By voluntarily giving that information up, there is no reason to expect that the Tor server you&#x27;re connecting too will keep that information private anymore then a Facebook server would, even if we would like&#x2F;hope that to be the case. The person who owns the Tor server is well within their rights to keep a log of every IP connected to their server.<p>You also have no control over the node which makes the actual connection to the outside world - In which case that server can equally log anything it wants about that connection. If the same person controls both servers and puts two-and-two together and figures out you made a connection to website X, they haven&#x27;t violated your 4th amendment rights because you voluntarily gave that information up by connecting to the Tor network without checking who you were giving that information too.<p>Tor&#x27;s intended goal is to provide privacy, but that doesn&#x27;t mean it gives you a legal expectation to privacy, which I think is what they&#x27;re getting at. The reality is that third-party entities that can do whatever they want with the data you voluntarily give them - The fact that they&#x27;re Tor nodes doesn&#x27;t change this.