Which doesn't at all change the point the parent is making... you don't have many options to verify that that button actually does what it claims to do, whereas it is a pretty well known fact among those who ever digged into the technology for a little bit, that a cellphone can be located to within a couple hundred meters, smartphone or not, location services or not.

If the military wants to make sure soldiers aren't trackable during deployment, forbidding cellphones alltogether is the only option.

I'd like to point out 2 things here:
1. this is a form of re-cycling
2. there are many uses of plastics that are near impossible to avoid as a consumer.

So while I agree with your statement about bottled water, I think your statement about re-use/re-cycle/substitute is overly simplified, and ignores that this is just another way of re-cycling.

Yes, those things will help a fair bit but having a way to better re-cycle the plastic we end up with anyway is solving a problem independent of if people re-use/substitute plastics wherever they can.

That said, if turning it back into some form of oil and then burning it is an environmentally friendly solution is a good question.

Nice and simple? no not at all.

The Chinese aren't so nice to not try to have spies gather any and all info they are interested in.

Is not so simple that the only way for the Chinese to figure out those things is by means of this leak. Rather, this leak shows how easy it was to obtain this information because of too many people having access to it (if its supposed to stay secret)

I think some people may be exposed, but is that the consequence of the actions of the whistle-blower?

Or would it be the consequence of bad policies that sabotaged transparency, and the response to that?

Hmm, you think, the Chinese gov needs Wikileaks to know about those things?

I think that is slightly naive...

The government acts on behalf of the people it supposedly represents, that is why secrecy by the government is completely different from you being able to communicate privately with your inlaws.

Actions and communications by the government need to be open for scrutiny. You are right that there exist cases where it is in the interest of 'the people' that the government can communicate securely and privately, but those should be the exception, and not the default.

The government isn't a person, it is a very useful entity, but also a very scary one if not kept in check. Being able to see practically everything it does is paramount to being able to keep it in check.