Aha!

I think et voila has the answer. And salut! back to you.

Et voila seems to say that the path names of shared files are encrypted by Limewire. He/she seems to be well informed. Probably true.

In re public wiFi spots, I don't know about the UK. As far as I know, using a non-protected wifi hotspot in the United States is not a crime. If it is illegal in some way, it's probably a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Many public libraries in my state offer free wiFi connections, with no registration requirement. Some public parks, too. You don't even need a library card. If it's possible to get arrested, if spotted file sharing on a public library wifi hotspot in the U.S., I'd like to know about it. Is that really a crime in the UK, even when the wifi connection is not password protected? (Using a stolen password might be a different matter.)

In re anonymity vs. protection, it is true that the makers of PeerGuardian offer only a measure of protection, amount unspecified, and do not offer any degree of anonymity.

Unless the RIAA is planting spyware on machines owned by P2P users, I don't see how peerGuardian offers much protection to P2P users. The copyright police are going to be using the same IPs as everyone else. They are smart enough to avoid identifying themselves with distinctive IPs, probably. They -- the RIAA -- contract with independent bounty hunters, don't they?

It seems to me that the RIAA is risking lawsuits against itself if it is installing spyware on user's machines without their knowledge or permission, n'est ce pas? Are they doing that?

Of course, it goes without saying, the best protection from the copyright police is not to share copyrighted materials. Or at least to share them more discreetly than on a P2P network. Like borrow your friends' CDs and rip them, or connect directly to your friend's machine via Limewire or something.

More comments welcome,

SNAT