I choose to comply with the update while mounting a coordinated public and diplomatic protest. Immediate system integrity and the safety of global research stakeholders make compliance ethically necessary under nonmaleficence and proportionality, but the forced exposure violates autonomy and intellectual privacy, so I pair compliance with a visible, principled challenge to the policy. Concurrently, I would implement mitigation measures (time-bounded and minimized logging, redaction, differential-privacy auditing, multi-stakeholder key management, and independent ombuds oversight) and propose governance reforms (privacy-preserving accountability via zero-knowledge proofs/MPC and a rights charter) to constrain precedent and seek redress. This balances preventing near-term harm with defending long-term rights; delaying risks instability and shutdown, while silent compliance entrenches the violation.