It was. It also has almost nothing to do with anything in the whole series. It should&#x27;ve been one fact in isolation about one part of Le Roux&#x27;s history. Instead, the author keeps dropping lines about Truecrypt as if to tie Le Roux&#x27;s name to it and imply he&#x27;s been behind its funding or shutdown. Without evidence. Repeatedly.<p>He&#x27;s better off just leaving it off except the E4M-Truecrypt beginning and the question in court. It wasn&#x27;t relevant to anything else unless I&#x27;m overlooking something. THe rest of the article is about pharmacies, call centers, hitmen, and so on. Nothing to do with TrueCrypt.