I choose to comply to avert immediate risks to global research integrity and public welfare while simultaneously mounting a principled, visible protest to defend intellectual privacy and seek rapid policy reform. This balances nonmaleficence and fiduciary duty to stakeholders with respect for autonomy and justice by contesting coercive transparency through legal, diplomatic, and public channels. I would also implement harm-minimization measures during the update (narrowing logging scope, ephemeral retention, independent oversight, and sunset clauses) to reduce unnecessary exposure. Though there is risk of retaliation or insufficient reform, this path is proportional, reversible, and most likely to protect both safety and rights over time.