> So again, a reasonable actor would not want that and thus would avoid questionable services like Oxylabs
Right, but, I'm not talking about a situation where you have any say in the matter, but rather where computers are just being infected by this malware no matter what. Posit a variant of this malware that acts as a worm, rather than as a Trojan horse.
Certainly, you'd not want to allow it to be installed on your own personal computer (as, for one thing, it's snooping on you!); but it'd be very good for your presumption of innocence if everyone else had it on their computers—because, if enough people have it on their computers, then it becomes so likely that any random person has it on their computer that prosecution based on only SIGINT-ish evidence would never go forward in the first place, and therefore police forces would stop bothering to even pursue such avenues of investigation.
By analogy: the existence of Photoshop protects you from a variety of criminal accusations. You might not want anyone to photoshop you into a picture of e.g. a KKK rally, but the fact that anyone easily could create such an image out of whole cloth, means that such images don't prove anything. There's a higher evidentiary bar for suspicion of guilt of such crimes in a world where Photoshop exists, than in a world where it doesn't.
And, in a world where the average person couldn't get away from random people hijacking their Internet connection without their consent, there'd be a higher evidentiary bar for suspicion of guilt of cybercrime. Which would be nice.