I thought this was going to be about the asymmetry between the information hoarders, who have all the data and the tools and budgets to analyze and act on it, and the information paupers, (everyone else) who have nothing and yet pay for the hoarders' activities through taxes. It's a kind of strategic flanking. That much power has never been assembled not to be used, and used it will be, against us all, sooner or later, if not already.
I know they do not want encryption and are undermining it, but to state they are "fighting encryption" when they are also saying "fighting terrorism" and "fighting drugs" puts the encryption issue in a whole different light. It would be as if they are saying encryption is terrorism.
I didn't see the phrase "fight encryption" anywhere in the quote, so I followed to the Bloomberg link, where that phrase also appears only in the headline. I would have been much more concerned if the DA had said "fight encryption" but thankfully not.
The more I think about it, the more absurd I find this article. Open Access for research is appropriate because public funds paid for it. Open Source is the developer's choice because private funds paid for it (generally). The author seems to think that all software should be open source.