In effect he invoked "European values" the way he phrased his claim. Looking further, his party's values and European values are the same thing according to them (See: https://www.reneweuropegroup.eu/what-we-stand-for/promoting-... ), which is again a nice rhetorical trick.
More importantly, he didn't say "free of mass surveillance", which is fair but you can have facial recognition in public space while staying anonymous as in my previous example. He said "free of risk of mass surveillance", which is very different and an absolute, extreme proposition. It's like saying that cars should be banned because people should be free of the risk of car crashes, ban the police to be free of the risk of police brutality, etc... It does not make sense and is indeed a rhetorical trick to make a blanket ban appear the only acceptable option.
Sorry but I don't want to live in a country where the government scans my face and tracks my movement every time I leave my home. Nor can I even believe I even have to say this. Cars are deadly machines and regulating deadly machines is different to regulating and tracking human beings. And just because my name won't match in a criminal database and therefore I'll remain "anonymous" doesn't change that I don't want the government putting a leash around my neck, even if they promise not to strangle me with it unless they say I did something wrong.
More importantly, he didn't say "free of mass surveillance", which is fair but you can have facial recognition in public space while staying anonymous as in my previous example. He said "free of risk of mass surveillance", which is very different and an absolute, extreme proposition. It's like saying that cars should be banned because people should be free of the risk of car crashes, ban the police to be free of the risk of police brutality, etc... It does not make sense and is indeed a rhetorical trick to make a blanket ban appear the only acceptable option.