Seth Mnookin, writing for the PLOS Panic Virus blog (almost two weeks ago, oops):
That might sound crazy, but consider: Because it’s sexier to discover something than to show there’s nothing to be discovered, high-impact journals show a marked preference for “initial studies” as opposed to disconfirmations.
The cover says “Muslim rage.” Really. Newsweek ran this.
Though I risk sounding paranoid, I do want to emphasize that an article such as this doesn’t actually demonstrate the veracity of these companies’ claims; it merely reports the claims. There is no investigation here, and that’s always something to keep in mind.
That said, this is pretty damning toward AntiSec:
Messages sent Monday to the Twitter accounts of hackers who had claimed credit for the attack went unanswered.
AntiSec’s intent here was to boost their own legitimacy and either (a) expose a major FBI transgression and shake people’s trust in them or (b) libel them. Since neither the FBI nor AntiSec seem capable of making their respective case irrefutably, the only useful takeaway I can see is that neither of these groups is to be merely trusted on their word. (And be happy Apple is apparently phasing out UDIDs.)
Glenn Greenwald relays the story from Amber Lyon.