Hacker News Reader

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

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

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.