WASHINGTON – Just when we were starting to worry that we were running out of excuses to brag about having conducted the very first interview with the people who were the most wanted hackers on earth, the good people at New Scientist, in only selectively updating their website in response to the whole Sabu-was-an-informant-all-along debacle, have provided us with yet another such reason to proclaim our glory.
I popped over to New Scientist’s “contact us” page to make something called an “enquiry” (we can’t make heads or tails of it, either, folks) about why they continue to insist that their interview with some organization called the “FBI” was in fact an interview with either a member of LulzSec – or daresay the first. We’re willing to give New Scientist the benefit of the doubt. Surely it’s not that their esteemed staff has any personal investment in fabulism, or taking credit for other journalists’ accomplishments. Why, if New Scientist knew their reporting to be wrong, surely they would have modified their blatantly incorrect headline.
Correspondence from the 9th of April:
We at the Internet Chronicle would like to request a correction from New Scientist. Your July 4  article “Exclusive first interview with key LulzSec hacker” was not only, as recent events revealed, an exchange with a hacker who was compromised; it was also not the “first” interview with a “key LulzSec hacker.” On June 13, 2011, The Internet Chronicle (chronicle.su) obtained the first bona fide interview with a key LulzSec member, their Twitter operator, complete with audio.
On behalf of the rest of the editorial team at the Internet Chronicle, I respectfully request a correction to your headline, as well as your referring your readers to the actual first interview with any key LulzSec hacker.
The Internet Chronicle
While it is true that, months before our interview with LulzSec’s suspected Twitter operator Jake Davis, Mr. Davis had harangued the Westboro Baptist Church’s Shirley Phelps-Roper, as I once did, the eventual LulzSec member was not at that time advertising himself as a member of the ill-fated LulzSec fold, brought down by a number of factors, including, according to some claims, Hector “Sabu” Monsegur’s refrain from using Internet anonymizer Tor before entering an IRC venue. Either way, even if we grant Mr. Davis “LulzSec” status back in February 2011, this consideration does not discount the inaccuracy of the New Scientist claim.
We’re not trying to split hairs. We get that the headline “first interview with key LulzSec hacker” makes sense if one’s readership is aware of the notion that some hackers in LulzSec are more “key” than others. But if one understands the science of how LulzSec successfully crowd-sourced its operations, to suppose that Mr. Monsegur’s own routing abilities were any less “key” than Mr. Davis’s rather, we admit, hilarious penchant for whipping an electronic mob into an anarchic frenzy, is simply balderdash. I grew up reading Scientific American, and even remember some of it. New Scientist’s false headline reeks of Popular Mechanics quality.
Frankly, given the controversy surrounding LulzSec, even we would have thought it irresponsible to credit any interview based purely through text correspondence. And coming from the people who thought it responsible to run a satirical report claiming that American musician Akon died of AIDS, New Scientist has some Desi Arnaz ‘splainin’ to do. Twenty-four hours after our communication with New Scientist, we eagerly anticipate the outlet’s correction, and their laud of the Chronicle’s ever-fearless journalism, which is a national treasure.