Many analogies for the Tornado cash case have been offered, here's a better one ;)

You are a manufacturer of blinds for windows, and tinted windows for cars.

This is not the manufacture of something that harms people directly, or harms people if misused (you'd have a lot of trouble trying to kill someone with these products).

These products have a direct usage in aiding privacy and security (that the two are linked is apparently entirely unobvious to many in the general public when asked about the privacy issue, and apparently also unobvious to certain Dutch judges).

Once you sell the product, you have no further involvement. You may see a car with your tinted windows pass by on the road, but you can't stop that car, even if you somehow know that it is a bank robbery getaway in action. By their nature, your products make it more difficult for you to see if the actions occurring behind them is criminal or not criminal.

Finally, like literally every product on the planet that is *actually useful*, it IS useful in criminal activity. But as per the 4th paragraph, it is ALSO very useful in non criminal activity.

If you got this far in reading, I'd like to pose the question: how do we get the general public to understand or care that this is the case?