The article describes actual hacking related activity, you just have to read more than 2 sentences to get to it.

I still don't think it's particularly damning given how many of us were tinkering with hacks and exploits at 15, but you're not being accurate here.

I see that now, but I think I was well-justified in not reading the rest of the article after the opener.

That first sentence set the tone and intent of the rest of the article, and it's a failure of the article to start with what I quoted instead of making it clear what really occurred.