So, interestingly, the ideal security lens in any given situration is almost the reverse of the design of a photographic lens. (EA)
Interesting, yes, indubitable, no.
...most security cameras use other means to improve low-light performance.
First, although there may be 'other means' available to surveillence cameras, that's because low-light performance is so key to surveillence that other more artistic concerns, e.g. color space, low noise/distortion, are sacrificed if need be to that end. These are things that no photographic camera would dare do. But that, as John counters, doesn't mean lower F numbers are worse or even immaterial, they still comprise the front line assault against the forces of darkness, and all other things being equal, lower is better, and a lot lower is a lot better.
Also, lower F numbers mean shallower depth of field (DOF).
This is true. However true DOF issues are rarely seen in security cameras. Why? Two technical reasons:
1) Sensor size smaller sensor = deeper DOF. Witness the now ubiquitous availability of full-frame 35mm sensors in Pro DSLRs after old school photographers had enough of the 4/3 system with its crap crop factor of 2. Main reason shallower DOF afforded by larger sensors.
2) The nominal distance to subject is usually large enough to render it imperceptible. We're not talking close-up portrait with blurry daisies in the background. Also, if the distance is small enough to show the effect, often it doesn't matter if the background is out. Like in an LPC system.
And regardless, it seems unlikely that the industry is choosing higher f-upped lenses because they fear shallower FOV's.
So I would say although there are differents emphasises and constraints on each discipline, the lens design concerns generally follow the same vector.