At the risk of sounding like a corporate apologist since I write for Wired.com, Wired.com did NOT use the javascript history hack. It was noted in the report for using Tynt.com, which notices which portions of a story a reader copies and pastes and inserts a link back to the story. Wired.com has since stopped using the service, in no small part because it annoyed the writers, but it never, to my knowledge and to the report's findings, secretly captured users' browser histories. You can read the full report's findings at the following link: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/lerner/papers/ccs10-jsc.pdf.
I'm not sure there's really anything to report back. Tynt is fairly widely used, and is really nothing more than a piece of javascript that watches copy and paste and inserts a link back to the original story into the paste buffer. It's annoying, but there's no profiling going on and is far less of a tracking system than say Google Analytics. It's just more annoying.
