They mean they have nothing to hide from the government. That can be reconciled with locking their doors because they might trust the government more than their neighbors.
Let's not extrapolate what we think they mean from what they actually say. Most people don't challenge their own opinions so even the 'locking your door' argument helps them begin to articulate more precisely. From there it's possible to have a discussion. You might arrive at a point where people understand the nuances of privacy and I still consider that a win (eg "I don't care if the police know about my affair but I don't want the neighbourhood to know")
First, if you ask someone about government surveillance, you have to assume that context in evaluating their response. People don't parrot back context that's already part of the conversation.
Second, I think you have to apply the principle of charity. Instead of assuming that people mindlessly parrot an opinion, think about what sorts of reasonable assumptions might render their positions self-consistent.
One of the most powerful ways to persuade is to figure out someone else's reasoning to the point you can articulately argue their position, and then to refocus the disagreement on the assumptions underlying that reasoning.
I understand your points but I think you're being far too charitable. You assume that most people's views are self-consistent but I don't think that's necessarily the case. People parrot opinions all the time (cf during every political campaign ever). I'm merely suggesting that you probe to find out if the viewpoint is consistent at all. If so, then congratulations, you can have an adult discussion. If not, then I suggest a different approach is more helpful. To be clear, I'm not suggesting anything antagonistic.
