Re: What? you mean
Firstly it wasn't me that downvoted Cynic, any cynic is OK by me.
As to whether the article is clear, I clearly didn't feel it so, hence the original question about whether it was the IP address of the PC or whether it was the IP address of the router. I'd read the article as saying that the Windows media shit was exposing the IP address of the PC, as presumably (my guess from the article) that was inside any packets. OK, perhaps I'm in the tin foil hat brigade but when I resort to TOR I make sure there are no other routes off the PC.
> I also find it odd that you don't think someone knowing your name, address and phone number would be a problem
What I was saying was the exact opposite of this. I'd said that if, like me you run fully routed addresses which can be looked up in whois then you're wide open. But if it is the NAT'd address which is exposed then there isn't much harm and that everyone should do this to avoid casual identification.
Lots of ISPs also NAT the routers IP address and these are not persistent. So to the casual observer the only thing which would be visible would be which ISP you're using.
What I'd not considered was state sponsored snooping where of course the ISP is likely to reveal your ID to the hacker. Or perhaps where the hacker is the ISP.
My other mistake was not to realise that people using TOR would be allowing non-TOR traffic at the same time.
Thanks for the explanation and please accept 1 up vote for your trouble.