The above is one example of why any "taint analysis" should include individual judgment as to if a particular deposit should be accepted or not.
And how many exchanges or blockchain analysis companies do you think are doing that for the average user who is depositing amounts less than 1 BTC? Maybe in Draper's case when they are dealing with ~30,000 BTC then it becomes worth their time for someone to sit down and manually check things (especially when it is so easily identified as in Draper's case), but for the average user with small amounts of funds from a variety or sources which flag up with a variety of taint reasons, then it is absolutely not worth their time. Why spend their own money to look in to when they can just lock the account and demand ridiculous amounts of KYC instead?
I would also note that a customer can bring legal action against an exchange if the exchange disallows withdrawals.
Maybe you know otherwise, but I am unaware of literally any successful cases by an individual user against a major exchange which locked their account or seized their coins.
However, I am not sure if tainting addresses in that manner makes much sense.
Tainting addresses in any manner makes no sense. As soon as a transaction, any transaction, has taken place, then you cannot say that those coins have not changed hands in a perfectly legal manner, such as buying goods from another person or being sold peer to peer. If we applied this taint nonsense to fiat, then every single coin or bill in circulation would be tainted.
According to this, all addresses that have ever received coins from the Binance exchange will be associated with suspicious and illegal activities.
All the more reason for people to ignore taint and stop supporting exchanges like Binance which implement it.