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.
It's great that the Foundation is embracing Open Access research, but the author doesn't even praise them for their stance. Then, the author takes the un-natural leap to conflate Open Access research with Open Source software, apparently because they share the word Open. This is supposed to be a jab at Microsoft but it just backfires because it is off point and impertinent.
If the NSA is so competent at securing computers, why doesn't the NSA start by securing all the government computers? They don't even have to ask permission because the government already owns them. If the NSA can totally secure all the government computers, then I'll consider letting them handle my security.