Hacker News Reader

Accountable for what? What wrongdoing are you alleging and what is your evidence?

That seems like an intentionally misleading sentence structure. The phrase was said by the guy from the navy, not anyone from Google.

It doesn't seem misleading at all tbh. Misleading would by "liaison to the military", not "liaison in the military".

Which, I can argue, makes the statement much much worse.

Maybe. But the whole article seems to me to be centered around bozotic behavior by the Navy, not questionable actions of Google.

To me the biggest red flag is that they eventually selected "small technology firm" to host the scanned archive, instead of a legit cloud operator like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. That is the most likely point of graft in this process.

The guy from the Navy was under Google's NDA.

What law do you suggest here? Or do you mean consumers should vote with their wallets? (or eyes, in the case of ads.)