Dan is characterizing Rubin's position around security as non-inclusive. Not that "nothing was secure", but that any feature (X) that was prioritized was done so not just without taking security into account, but with a belief that security was at odds with said feature (for all examples of X).

Basically, in a bastardized form of the "Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick two."

I don't know who was the responsible party for Android's terrible security track record, but Dan knows a lot more about mobile security than I do, so I'm hesitant to say he's slandering anybody.