People gonna be even more pissed when feds kick their doors down. Freenet would be more resistant to it but maybe not immune. I am not Freenet expert, but I think many attacks against Freenet require a local external attacker (IE: the users ISP) in order to easily get around plausible deniability. Freenet is the most resistant of all the current networks to anonymity attacks. Even I2P seems like it would be more resistant than Tor, because I2P has some plausible deniability except in the face of an external attacker as well. If you are the ISP of the target, you can see all traffic into them and out of them. If you are not the ISP, you cannot tell for certain if traffic from them is being forwarded through them or if it originates from them, even if you are all nodes connected to them you cannot really be certain of this without an external position. Tor is actually pretty weak to internal attackers in this regard, due to the fact that clients are not relays. Constant rate cover traffic is a technique that can provide perfect anonymity in low latency. But it requires too much bandwidth to be feasible. It pretty much has the same anonymity as a DC-net. Well, if the botnet owner had all his nodes are relays he could easily deanonymize Tor 100% instantly. But he cannot get all of his nodes to be relays because nodes are screened by directory authority servers that have mechanisms in place to protect from botnet flood attacks. Unlike I2P and unlike Freenet.