This information alone doesnt indicate how PCI compliant this solution was. To be PCI compliant every box that stores or *transmits* card data is in scope, including any routers/switches/firewalls that data hits. Presumably you also had a source to the card number data, and that sounds like an area of particular difficulty to secure. Any application that allows card data to be captured (even if not stored) should go through PA-DSS (payment application) compliance testing.

There is a discussion about the vulnerability on StackOverflow

Once you get to the top you just have to bounce into space.

Ditto almost exactly. It was when they put Lik-Sang out of business that was the final straw for me. Since then I've avoided all Sony products, and sucessfully convinced a few other family members and close friends to do the same.

Personally I'm hoping to see servers go up in smoke, explosions, minor casualties and with some luck an invasion by a passing Vogon fleet when I ask for The Ultimate Question

No seriously. I've had some real moments of epiphany whilst mulling over problems from the day before. Sometimes its only when you're away from your keyboard that you start looking at the bigger picture rather than the minutiae of individual classes/methods

Seemed like a great idea, until I read this:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&pageRank=4&language=EN
It cannot, however, override decisions taken by competent authorities within Member States. As the European Parliament is not a judicial authority, it can neither pass judgement on, nor revoke decisions taken by, the Courts of law in Member States. Petitions seeking such courses of action are inadmissible.

I'm definately wanting to get involved though if someone can find a good approach.

I fully agree that taking the servers down would be a futile act, but in no way would losing this case be better for society. If TPB win this case then it could bring about a sea change in how copyright infringement cases are brought to trial. Further it could be the first step in a loong overdue reform of copyright law. At the VERY least it would force the big media distributors to reassess their methods of getting digital content out to consumers.

TPB has had around 25million+ peers connected through its trackers. And thats just one of the tracker sites. Shooting from the hip its easy to guess that at any given time there are 50,000,000 or more people downloading illegal torrents. You cant just expect to take a couple of guys to court to change the behaviour of ~50 million people. The media companies have got themselves into this mess with ridiculous DRM schemes, overpriced media and poor quality products. Its time for a change.

It would be interesting to see what happened if a few people complained about this page (warning. Potentially NSFW):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Radiant-Identities-Elizabeth-Beverley/dp/0893816493/ref=pd_sim_b_2_img

The IWF seems to be targetting non-commercial sites such as Wikipedia and archive.org. If they want to seem honest and unbiased then they should also examine the content on commercial sites.

It has always been called piracy. File sharing is a new term that has come into use with p2p software. File sharing is arguably distinctly different, and you probably dont want to muddy the waters between legal filesharing, and illegal piracy.