But they aren't really relevant to the parent comment's point, which is that, even with these (potential) holes giving your address book to Path is fundamentally different than posting it publicly. In one instance, your data is public, immediately and unconditionally. In the other, there is potential for abuse that could result in your data becoming public if an arguably unlikely sequence of events were to occur.
So it doesn't make any sense at all for Winer to be challenging PD to engage in a behavior that is simply not analogous to the issue at hand. All that Winer's post does is distort the issue, intentionally or not, and distract from the important debate/conversation that Path's policies initiated. I honestly don't see how that's helpful at all.
[UPDATED: Minor correct for clearer syntax]
No way they are running their operation on the cheap and don't have their servers secured against intrusion.
No way they can be inexperienced developers and build an API that leaks information to improperly authenticated requests.
No way they can have a disgruntled employee throw a torrent of it all up when he gets fired.
No way they can get bought by someone with fewer scruples and hand your data over to them as part of the acquisition.