I get why you&#x27;re saying it and all. It&#x27;s just that this article really plays on the E4M-Truecrypt connection and jumps between Le Roux and its story. See here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mastermind.atavist.com&#x2F;he-always-had-a-dark-side" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mastermind.atavist.com&#x2F;he-always-had-a-dark-side</a><p>The Hacker News comments and title showed many were already thinking a grand reveal was forthcoming of how Le Roux was financing Truecrypt all this time. It keeps getting mentioned even though it has nothing to do with Le Roux&#x27;s life or story post E4M. Here&#x27;s an alternative that&#x27;s more accurate for the significance of Truecrypt to the story:<p>The original paragraphs on E4M and Truecrypt spinoff stay. After sentence &quot;...message boards for good,&quot; the author stops talking about Truecrypt entirely. He should mention PhoneCrypt offer in isolation as it was significant. Later on, might mention for the trial question the context that some people suspected Le Roux might have funded or worked on Truecrypt all this time. Then show he was asked, said yes for E4M, and no for Truecrypt. Then move on.<p>I mean, there&#x27;s not much reason to talk so much about Truecrypt, Snowden&#x27;s view of it, and so on if there&#x27;s nothing tying Le Roux to Truecrypt. That someone built on his work and it turned into a solid tool would be enough to say. The only good thing I could think of is that the author is trying to encourage people to use Truecrypt and such strong, OSS encrypt by embedding it into his piece. That would be annoying but justifiable in a greater good sense. Still not relevant to Paul Le Roux, though, past fork of E4M without evidence he was behind Truecrypt.