I don't think it's as black and white as all that. This reads like the equivalent claim the NSA makes along the lines of, "if you have nothing to hide, why can't we record every facet of every communication and store it forever?" Business relationships run on trust. Claiming your software is secure when it is to the best of your knowledge is not dishonest.
That's a false dichotomy. Not wanting personal conversations recorded is called discretion, a form of wisdom. Not wanting technical details of a product published is primarily a way to gain a competitive advantage, either against other businesses or against potential threats.
You're making the baseless (and some might say naive) assumption that it is secure to the best of their knowledge. If they really wanted to build trust then they would prove it and leave no doubt in people's minds.
"Dear citizen, you're asking us to make the baseless assumption that you're innocent until proven guilty, if you really want to build trust you'll let us monitor you 24/7 and leave no doubt in our mind."
You're making an assumption of guilt. The fact that something isn't open source doesn't inherently make it insecure.
It doesn't make it trustworthy either. When speaking of encryption algorithms, not publishing a new algorithm for peer reviewing is unthinkable. This is also not about judgment - I do consider people to be innocent until proven guilty, but do you trust people you don't know with issues that could harm you? Besides companies are not people, we are taking about a commercial entity here that wants to sell something. And people get to vote with their wallet and opinions, depending on their needs and I see nothing wrong with that.
"And people get to vote with their wallet and opinions, depending on their needs and I see nothing wrong with that."
I was thinking the same thing! But you seem to be assuming guilt and I am not. Honestly, I can see it both ways. It just seemed spurious to me to state that if we don't know it's good, it must be bad.
I'm not making any assumptions as to their motives; I have not accused them of any wrong doing. As far as I'm concerned, they might be working in good faith or they might not be. That's not good enough when it comes to security. You're incorrect with that last sentence as I and others have pointed out already.
