I feel that they've lost a lot of trust, and they will need to do something more than a super high-level wiki page on github to win this trust back.
Does that mean I support them? Very well then, I support them! Go hunt some giants! Change the world! Go make things better while your critics sit on their hands and tell you can't, too afraid to build things themselves!
Have no misgivings: Facebook has exactly the same kinds of buggy messes while features are in development. The only difference here is that Facebook's prototypes never see the light of day, whereas Diaspora's did.
Considering they were pretty much given $200,000 via a site which NEVER allows startups on their site (what does Diaspora have to do with the creative arts again?), and widely promoted themselves via mainstream media sources without even having written a line of code, I don't think it's unfair to have extremely high expectations from the get go. It's not like it's some random bunch of guys who posted stuff in progress on HN.
And yes, I understand that it was a developer release, pre-alpha, or whatever you want to call it, but a release is a release and it people will form opinions of the software because of it. Remember KDE 4.0? It was unusable but it was released, and a lot of controversy and annoyance came out of it. Remember Netscape's brilliant idea of letting real users be its "beta testers"? That was a bad idea.
It doesn't matter what you tag a release as; a buggy release is a buggy release.
I will look at the next stable release with an open mind, but there is no reason for me to blindly discard their past.
Personally, I trust that they can still produce a solid security model. A non-beta release can hardly be judged from a final verdict perspective, even or maybe even especially from a security standpoint.