I share your cynicism, but I think it's worth examining if IBM's cynical cop-out might also be true. Is it possible to develop facial recognition systems that couldn't be used for mass surveillance? Or, is it possible to develop mass surveillance systems that could only be used in the pursuit of moral (or at least morally neutral) goals?

I'm generally of the opinion that tools are intrinsically amoral; neither moral nor immoral. A hammer could be used to build an orphanage, or be used to hit orphans; it's an amoral tool that could be used for good or evil. But I think when tools become sufficiently powerful, that sort of perspective starts to break down. Weapons of mass destruction are good examples of this from the past century. Could there conceivably exist digital systems too powerful to consider morally neutral? Personally I think so, and I think facial recognition technology might qualify.