Thats not even half the truth. What I see is exactly false promises, lack of documentation and much innocence at the struggling users. Users try to establish p

Thats not even half the truth. What I see is exactly false promises, lack of documentation and much innocence at the struggling users. Users try to establish privacy, use good 'ol Truecrypt. The average joe then trusts the promises, sees the "no history" checkbox, thinks he has a choice, but he does not - it's leaking and he doesn't know. And some user indeed find out that there is a leak. You can look in forums to see demand for solutions - and the many efforts to give advice. Often also false promises. Which is worst. Truecrypt claims to offer features (no history), and officially worries about plausible deniability. And then you see practically it's all a huge mess. And I really blame them for giving false promises. And yes: we could keep on to pass the buck, but TrueCrypt fails epically ignoring this issue. As I state, there would be true solutions possible to circumvent this leaking nightmare. If they wished, they (TrueCrypt) could fix it themselves (e.g. using another way of file selector). If that were my project, I would do something against this and not ignore (for years). And doing nothing will not help anybody. So I tried to give a practicable workaround until someone fixes the mess.