Possibly because they didn't think there was a market for legitimate use of such information, and selling something for clear use in a criminal act is a different story, and may even be criminal in itself depending on circumstances. Even if the industry accepts that (not implying that it does), openly airing it might be a different matter.
Some level of assumption is often required to efficiently converse, so we just have to accept that occasionally the assumptions are a little more off base than we would like.
I'm curious why you made such a post without knowing the industry?