pointless to do so? have you ever worked at a large public corporation with a legal dept? im guessing no.. this release went through many iterations internally to ensure technical veracity, but that could nonetheless appear to demonstrate transparency.
otherwise, why not just use plain-speak without gaping holes? im sure many people here could very easily craft a release that would suffice, but that would require them to say things that they cannot without lying.
p.s. find it fascinating that with the magnitude of lying, spying, and obfuscation already in the public domain, you would call anyone that questions 'official press releases' for equivocation 'paranoids'. i wonder what would need to be released for you to move the onus upon those releasing the info. and using that logic, unless the chinese now rollver, they are also 'paranoids'.