I beg to differ, and request that you explain what "begging the question" is, since I obviously seem to misunderstand it. On the site which I refer to, they define it as:
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.
Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.
I definitely see a parallel in the above explanation and the reasoning behind the "we have root" argument.
Say the question is: "why should we trust Canonical or Ubuntu to have a peek at our personal search results?" The answer from Shuttleworth seems to be, "because we have root, it means you trust us". In other words, the response to the question of trust is trust, posed as a premise.
Also, the additional argument you are describing, we can summarize as "you can trust us with X because you trust us with X-1", which may be better presented as a slippery slope fallacy.
Then again, you are accusing me of misunderstanding logical fallacies, something at which I cannot respond to other than asking you to clarify how I misunderstand, or explain your accusation as a poorly articulated ad hominem attack, as opposed as demonstrating my argument as wrong.
Thank you for your comment and have a nice day.