But it occurs to me at some level they are the same thing, but take opposite positions. And are therefore irreconcilable.
For example, a provocative way to pose this question is as follows. People who strongly advocate that their free open source software be done in the open, also to my observation, commonly advicate their personal conversations be kept private. But if openness and transparency is a good that can improve things by communal surveillance, feedback and contribution, why do they want to deny their selves the same, don't they also want to improve themselves in their personal aspect?
My point in asking this question is to establish what the distinction is, and to reconcile their different approaches under a shared concept of moral good. I'm asking the question because I want to know what other people think and I don't immediately see a solution to this.
We are talking about morals and good when we talk about privacy and when we talk about open source. That is not just the way they are commonly discussed, it is what motivates policy and action regarding each.
The argument for open source software as a good thing that improves results is because discussion and inner workings are made public and conducted transparently in the open, people are more secure, our systems have fewer defects, we have more control and we are more free.
The argument for privacy as a good thing, is because discussions and inner workings are never made public, and conducted invisibly behind closed doors, people's autonomy and identity are more secure, society's ideas and identities have fewer defects because individuals are more free to experiment and try on a wide range of different ideas, expressions and identities without the cooling effect of the surveillance grid, we have more control and we are more free.
I realize that this presentation is maybe facetious in the way it draws parallels. There are plenty of other ways to present the two concepts. I've done this to demonstrate the similarities, to make it harder to ignore their irreconcilable opposite position. Because focusing on that and trying to reconcile that is the point of asking this question.
Maybe I'm just inventing this irreconcilability with some disingenuous sophistry. But any moral system has to be guided by principles and consistency to have credibility, to be defensible and to not seem arbitrary, and not just an Byzantine enumeration of situation specific rules and exceptions that contradict each other, but just must be accepted because it's the law. No one likes that. A mathematical or logical system that contradicts itself is limited and flawed. So moral consistency is important. And from the point of view of this question it seems like privacy and free open source software are inconsistent.