It could well be that Cimex is hoping to get some business out of it, but that doesn't automatically discredit their evaluation, which actually rings true for many crime-mapping (and other public-oriented mapping) websites I've visited (and one or two that I've created, shame on me!).

I think we have a long way to go in developing interactive maps that communicate effectively to the general public. Which of the study's results do you take exception to? If there's a fault, I'd say that the conclusions and recommendations are not terribly deep or specific, but they certainly seem on target as far as they go.

It seems that different aspects of the press release struck us differently. The main impression I come away with is: these sites are failing to meet their objectives because they present information much less well than they could. You seem to be troubled by the statement that a lack of perceived transparency is eroding trust, because you feel that publishing data is inherently transparent. In any case, I don't perceive anything in the press release to be suggesting anything as extreme as your proposed "my govt is intentionally...[lying] to me".

Perhaps erosion of trust is over-stating the case, but I think there's a connection between trust and communication. Don't you implicitly have more trust in persons or institutions that communicate effectively? It's a natural, often sub-conscious reaction to effective presentation. We are impressed by it, persuaded by it, reassured by it.

To me the main point (but maybe just because it resonates with something I already believe) is that these public mapping sites are often long on "gee whiz" and short on effective presentation of information and the tools needed to facilitate the exploration of the data in an intuitive and meaningful way. (I'm aware that this last comment begs a host of questions about the way or ways that data can be explored intuitively and meaningfully, but I hope my point can stand without providing the treatise such a topic deserves).