A rational argument would present evidence which reflected increases in overall security weaknesses from a transparent development process to counteract my claims.
We don't have to aim for the targets that you set up for us, we can also argue why "to be known" is not a prerequisite in a transparent dev process.
Your facts:
- Higher accountibilty when (=after) something goes wrong -> Does not protect you from something going wrong.
- make better informed judgements as to the motivations of certain developers -> Motivations are not relevant, could be money, could be ideology, could be anything
- the background of the developers can give us some understanding of their technical proficiency -> So does the quality of the code they write