You’re leaving out that the file in question was supposed to be temporary (via a server up for a few hours) and the BitTorrent leak happened later, unbeknownst to the Guardian staff, when WikiLeaks reused the same password for an insurance distribution.

Also, think analytically about what “probably in the hands of the NSA” contributes other than fearmongering: the data in question belonged to the U.S. State Department — if the NSA wanted it, they can just ask! (Or brute-force it, in all likelihood) It’s everyone else who would be interested in the archive.

> the data in question belonged to the U.S. State Department — if the NSA wanted it, they can just ask!

The US government may not have known exactly what the leaks contained, and providing the passphrase gives cryptographic evidence that they were in fact in possession of certain documents that might not have been revealed publicly. So my invocation of the NSA is not just fearmongering -- the reason why journalists may choose to not disclose something is for their own safety and not just the safety of the public or sources.

Also, it's a bit interesting you assume that the NSA could break GPG. If anything, the Snowden revelations showed that GPG is hard-to-break even for the NSA (if not secure).