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.
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.