Wrong on the facts -- the article calls it a "security breach" and names the professor as the responsible party. The article says he did this in front of a clas

Wrong on the facts -- the article calls it a "security breach" and names the professor as the responsible party. The article says he did this in front of a class full of students. I'd say he has a pretty good case for libel, and the authors are pretty stupid to ignore his demand for retraction and apology.