The problem is that the general public is very slow to learn. Every step along the way even the wise said things like "OH! The NSA said A, but they'll never say B!". Then two weeks later the docs show that B has not just been said, it'd been SCREAMED. Then the word is "But they'll never say C!". Etc. Maybe at some point people will pick it up differently.

It also fits the media format better to drip info. A new news article every new drip. That makes for a lot more exposure.

It's sad but true. I would LOVE instant full disclosure. But it just wouldn't have the same effect. Maybe you could do selective full disclosure, but who'd be allowed access? And who'd prevent the store of data from being leaked again?

Additionally there's the rewriting and securing. Often documents have person-specific typo's or sentence changes that can identify a specific instance of a document. There was this company that wanted to use it on e-books, rewriting "good" to "not bad", etc.

Anyway, mixed bag regarding full disclosure. I think this is easier, safer and reaches the general public better and as such it's the right choice. It's a damn shame that it is, sensationalism isn't fun.