Now, this seems almost too obvious, so I assume I must be missing something, but I figure I should run it by the experts first to see.
Hypothetical scenario: At 5:18pm, a user using the Tor network logs on and posts something on WikiLeaks (or some other site wherein anonymity would best be maintained in the interest of self preservation).
Lets say the data leaves country x, bounces off county a to country b to country c, finally arriving at server y in country y.
If regime x really wanted to seek prosecution of whomever contacted server y, wouldn't be as simple as contacting country y and using diplomatic connections to find out the ip of the server in country c which contacted the server y at exactly 5:18pm, contact country c to find out who contacted server c in country b, contact country b and find out who contacted server b in country a, then finally contacting country a to find out who contacted server a in country x? This of course would give them little trouble hunting down server x (you).
x => a => b => c => y
- get ip of c by looking in y's logs at precisely 5:18 and some milliseconds
- get ip of b by looking in c's logs at precisely 5:18 and some milliseconds
- get ip of a by looking in b's logs
- kick in your door once they realized your ip contacted server a at exactly 5:18
It should be mentioned, that county x would begin the investigation if the data sent to server y directly involved it. but if the data did hurt country x, then it's not a far cry to assume that they would begin an investigation
Of course this whole thought experiment relies on the idea that countries y,c,b, and a would all be diplomatically friendly with country x, but if its a life and death scenario should we really be relying on one countries inability to communicate with another???
Please tell me I'm missing something!?!?!?!