> The decisions for security measures didn't come from them.
This becomes philosophical, but the contract certainly contained security requirements (whether those are "adquante" can be argued) and they certainly required audits, which were done. But yes, the health minister is not an IT security expert, thus details are delegated.
> If they could get more info from people, they would try.
As the French try and Norwegians tried with their central approaches. If they wanted they could have made it closed source (like anything else they did before, thus nothing special) could have done more hand wavy design documents, could have done development away from a public repo with public issue tracker, ...
They (and yes, this was to a notable part driven by the engineers, but supervisees could easily overruled) conciously made it open and transparent.
There is hardly anything more they could have done within that project. (Spying activity by German intelligence/BND, "state trojans" (Quellen-TKÜ), ... etc are serious topics and yes, some "security experts" (i.e. Wolfgang Schäuble) demand mandatory tracking apps, but don't see that as being far from a mainstream oppinion in the government.