BoSacks Speaks Out: Tapping into the Power of Data

I came of age in the 1960s, pro‑pot, anti‑war, anti‑authority. I marched, I questioned, I pushed back. I have never been easily rattled by government power or military secrecy. Quite the opposite.

Which is why this moment gives me pause.

On November 21, 2025, The New York Times published a data‑driven investigation mapping U.S. Navy deployments near Venezuela using commercially available satellite imagery. The reporting was sharp, sophisticated, and technically impressive. It was also, at least to me, deeply unsettling.

We have crossed into new territory.

Satellite imagery that once belonged exclusively to governments is now widely available. Analysts, journalists, and frankly anyone with a credit card can track military assets with surprising accuracy. In this case, the reporting showed U.S. naval vessels operating roughly 80 to 160 kilometers off Venezuela’s coast.

That is not speculation. That is visibility.

And here is the uncomfortable question: just because we can see it, should we publish it?

Let me be clear. This is not a call for censorship. It is not flag waving. It is not a retreat from journalism. I have spent a lifetime defending free speech and the role of a free press. That has not changed.

What has changed is the nature of exposure.

If The New York Times has the ability to assemble this picture, our adversaries almost certainly do as well. But that reality does not obligate us to promote, highlight, or amplify the locations of our own forces. There is a difference between acknowledging that information exists and choosing to place it front and center for mass distribution.

I was never in the military. I do not pretend to speak with the authority of someone who served in uniform. But I do know something about life and death. I have seen it up close as a first responder, as a volunteer firefighter. When people are placed in harm’s way, precision and discretion matter. Exposure carries consequences.

Warships are not abstractions. They carry sailors, young men and women doing dangerous work in a volatile world. When we publish their approximate locations, even indirectly, we are not just informing the public. We are also informing anyone else who is paying attention.

Adversaries do not need a subscription to The New York Times. They need access to the same open source tools the Times used.

That is the shift.

Journalism has long held that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Fair enough. But sunlight can also function as a spotlight, and in military contexts, a spotlight can become a targeting mechanism.

That is where my unease begins.

Technology has outrun editorial instinct. The tools have evolved faster than the ethical frameworks guiding their use. We now risk confusing “publicly available” with “publicly advisable.”

Those are not the same thing.

There is a difference between accountability and exposure. Between informing the public and operationally mapping assets in near real time. Between reporting on policy and inadvertently assisting surveillance.

The line is there. You can feel it. It is just harder to define.

And I will admit something else. As I finish writing this, I find myself wondering whether I am overreacting. After all, this information is freely available to foe and ally alike. The data exists whether journalists write about it or not.

But doubt does not erase responsibility.

This is not happening in a vacuum. The Caribbean has seen a significant U.S. military buildup tied to escalating tensions with Venezuela, including carrier groups, air assets, and thousands of personnel positioned in the region. In that context, data‑driven transparency is not neutral. It becomes part of the environment.

I am still that anti‑war guy from the 1960s. I still believe in questioning power. But skepticism cuts both ways. Questioning authority should not mean ignoring vulnerability.

We used to worry about governments withholding information. Now we may need to worry about publishing too much of it.

Transparency without judgment is not journalism. It is data release.

Even an old hippie can see that in a dangerous world, some information requires context, restraint, and yes, a conscience.

So I will ask the question plainly:

Just because we can map it, should we print it?