Not sure how this relates. Article/interviewee is stipulating that the NSA intercepts all communications at the telecom level (as far as I understand). It doesn't say how this device also magically breaks encryption on encrypted data.
I guess you are saying that Google willingly allows the NSA to decrypt the data? What would Google have to gain there? Because they certainly have a lot to lose.
They don't need to break encryption for telecom interception to be worthwhile. Most email is not encrypted.
Knowing what web sites you go to, if you are otherwise interesting, is worth knowing even if they can't read the bits. Pen registers do that with phones, and that's valuable enough that there are legal protocols about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register
Just because you can't eat the whole enchilada doesn't mean the beans aren't worthwhile.
The email may not be encrypted, but as long as the data transfer was made under a secure protocol, there's not much of a difference. Only difference is that Google themselves can view your email in plaintext. But in terms of a man in the middle attack, I'm failing to see the difference.
A good argument can then also be that you should never trust emails outside your own provider? If you are sending to an @gmail to @gmail, you should be covered a bit better?
I guess you are saying that Google willingly allows the NSA to decrypt the data? What would Google have to gain there? Because they certainly have a lot to lose.