Security researchers would have an opportunity to detect the data coming out of a key logger etc. There is no opportunity to detect the nefarious things if they are all on nokias servers.

Hmmm who to call - the police or the ACCC ? Not sure the ACCC would pop into my head in this situation.

Will it be compatible with my existing shelf infrastructure ?

I disagree - all science that relies on evidence is by definition historical.
It's a theory - we can look for evidence that supports it or disproves it, it doesn't make sense to just discount it because it is in the past.

Another line of evidence that would support such a theory:
It appears that there is historical evidence of large agricultural civilizations living in the Amazon basin before contact with European diseases and them all disappearing a short time after. This guy was the first European to sail down the Amazon river and described cities etc and then they could not be found later. So the humans die out and large quantities of fertile land return to rainforest from agriculture, sucking up huge amounts of carbon, reducing green house effect.
The soil improvements that they made remain and are called Terra Preta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta#Pre-Columbian_Amazonia

FYI In America - walking is seen as an advanced maneuver, and should be avoided by driving (the more natural state) if at all possible.

It has been claimed that Bradley Manning had access to all this stuff, at the time it was leaked allegedly by him, so others would also had this access too.
What they would not have had is the equivalent of the journalists, media and social networking able to make sense of a lot of boring documents to find the important parts and put them in context.

Do they want to have a situation where every politically aware, literate citizen of the USA (and the rest of the world) knows more about what the US government has been up to than employees of the US government ?
That would appear to be the end result of this policy, and seems a bit silly.

Others worked on more pressing problems, like preventing catastrophic global warming, trying to avoiding using the remaining oil by fighting over it and making sure we are all fed.

Since you have no feelings on the issue, and are interested in more evidence, why not stop waiting to be yelled at and research the issue in its details at whatever technical level you can manage.
I am fairly sure any level of honest investigation on this subject by anyone with reason and understanding of the difference between faith and science, will find themselves yelling in favour of prevention of this experiment during their or their descendants time on earth.
The arguments against action on climate change are so specious and contradictory that they can only be intended to fool those who want to be fooled.

Source of death threats is likely sock puppet army software by HBGary or similar, commissioned by USA federal government, discovered by anonymous hack.
Probably the source of lots of climate denial posts all over the web.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All?detail=hide
Link to government solicitation document not working, lucky the document is copied inline for our records.

... and let theology have its place in the faculty of nonsense :)

Ha. Do you know where you are ? Your on slashdot.

Then transfer the green ideas back to USA and the war itself may not be necessary.

Which bit doesn't work like that ?

CO2 makes higher temps (obvious part of greenhouse effect)

Higher temps mean oceans dissolve less CO2, and more plants are stressed and release CO2, and permafrost and potentially methane clathrates make (OK not more CO2 but more CO2e).

Am I wrong ? - I am genuinely interested if I am wrong.
I read a lot of stuff.

1. Time lag disproves causality - true, but irrelevent, past changes driven by temperature caused co2 changes. This time we are driving with Co2 and causing temp changes. Coupled system - both effect each other. This is not good news as CO2 begets more temp which begets more CO2 and so on, also these changes happen much slower in past so who knows what happens this time when ocean thermal reservoir catches up.

2. H20 vs CO2. Yes lots more water - difference is that there arn't oceans of CO2 lying around H2o is in equilibrium with liquid water. We couldn't have any effect on H20 concentration directly if we tried. It would rain out if we added it or evaporate out of oceans if we took it out. CO2 on the otherhand is just the right powerful lever to pull and we are yanking it like it's never been yanked before in the history of earth - certainly since mammals were evolved anyway. CO2 also begets H2O which aggreed is most of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is a forcing H2O is a feedback.

3. Viking farm anecdotes. Climate changes - this was not a global phenomenon, and is interesting but doesn't disprove AGW.

4. So you are arguing the point about the temperature record on earth but you think that there is sufficient data on mars global temps to make that statement and use it to disprove AGW (one of the greatest scientific efforts ever) ? Thats just silly.

They have done due diligence but unfortunately - we have to watch the earth get stuffed seriously and rub your face in a post civil society - stuffed planet for you to get it. Plus we actually have to get it before major problems happen because of the decade time lags between action and response in the climate system and the political, engineering time lags, and tipping points.

Some of these points were probably worthy of discussion during the early 1990s.
Maybe this is one of the most important subjects out there and is worth more of your time investigating than just learning enough to parrot other ignoramuses.

I think I will be obtaining all my information and forming my world view based only on Fox News from now on where i can be sure to not encounter any pornography.