...

you have to wish that the news reporters publish the actual doc instead of uselessly paraphrasing it in an effort to claim interpretive credit. This is the achilles heel of the Snowden drop. PowerPoint, Photoshop and redactions coutured in editorial elaboration of documents not revealed is exactly what officials do to spin material and manipulate the public.

The Snowden material needs an untethered, unchoked, and unmarionetted leaker not more commercial journalism dribbling what, unforntunately has become common in the "era of WikiLeaks journalism," is disinfo. And implies the prospect of complicity with authorities under rigging of privileged journalism and coddled D-Noticers. The Guardian has belatedly confessed to that. And WaPo and the NYT have they have and will vet Snowden material with the USG before release. Which suggests cotinuation of a lot more editorial elaboration, TV garavitasing, bowdlerized reports and articles, Dough-Boy books, Op X films, primly steriolized documentaries. In effect, a propaganda push right out of the 1950s through the 2010s configured for cyberwar coldwar. Manchurian Assange, Manning, Snowden featured a la Zizek in the Guardian yesterday. Little crypto will be revealed, except misleading urge to use it as Snowden has done, instead much fancified metadata -- not to overlook the metaphysics of hyping entertaining leakage, now a booming culture of deceit continuing the cult of spy fiction began in days of Art of War.

If there's breaks with any "B" or other respected public algos, you can bet they keep that well compartmented. Losing some node somewhere is no big deal. Going dark on all your nodes as a result of wholesale crypto replacement response would be a big deal.

Knowledge of "A" would indeed be interesting to instructive.