And all you did was echo the lower portions of my own comment where I admitted that "fake alert" style applications could also take these details. And I'm sure other styles of attack as well.
The author of the article was trying to make a simple point though: If Apple allows an iTunes plugin such low level access that it can proxy a store transaction - ideally the thing they should be the most paranoid about - then they should probably revisit their plugin architecture (possibly taking a page from web browsing plugin sandboxing).
Claiming there will always be problems until the OS is as locked down as iOS is overkill.
You've already social-engineered your way to getting somebody to download and run an application, ignoring warnings along the way. Prompts for credentials when installing applications are perfectly normal.
> Configure proxy settings: prompt for admin credentials
??? Not on my machine. There isn't even a padlock icon in the relevant window.
Let's assume you're right and Apple should revisit it (I don't think they should; I prefer plugins that can, in fact, do anything they wish). How does that lead to the OP's hysterical conclusion?
Browser plugin sandboxing is a very new phenomenon. Apple doesn't give a shit about security because... they said they'll investigate doing something that has only recently been done for the first time at all? What?