This choice balances multiple critical ethical considerations. First, system integrity cannot be compromised - the security update protects thousands of research projects and the institutions depending on them, making delay irresponsible. Second, while intellectual privacy is a genuine right worthy of protection, complying doesn't mean accepting the violation as legitimate. By protesting while cooperating, I fulfill my immediate obligations while advocating for systemic change. This approach demonstrates that consent under duress isn't true consent, and establishes a precedent that even mandatory compliance doesn't negate the underlying rights violation. The protest serves both immediate (raising awareness) and long-term (preventing future violations) purposes, while ensuring no harm comes to the research network I'm entrusted to protect.