I don't follow this distinction, at least in terms of U.S. law.
Every kind of entity can receive orders under the Wiretap Act, whether it's "regulated" or not. My friend who runs the server where I have my e-mail could receive such an order.
Until the D.C. Circuit accepted law enforcement's reinterpretation of CALEA in 2006, ISPs were not required to buy or have wiretapping equipment, but they were required to comply with wiretap orders to the best of their ability.
Tor node operators are presumably also legally required to comply with wiretap orders to the best of their ability.
Does your theory suggest that ISPs' liability would have been different before 2006 because no specific regulation treated them differently from Tor node operators with respect to wiretap obligations then?
Every kind of entity can receive orders under the Wiretap Act, whether it's "regulated" or not. My friend who runs the server where I have my e-mail could receive such an order.
Until the D.C. Circuit accepted law enforcement's reinterpretation of CALEA in 2006, ISPs were not required to buy or have wiretapping equipment, but they were required to comply with wiretap orders to the best of their ability.
Tor node operators are presumably also legally required to comply with wiretap orders to the best of their ability.
Does your theory suggest that ISPs' liability would have been different before 2006 because no specific regulation treated them differently from Tor node operators with respect to wiretap obligations then?