The network’s stability and public safety make delaying the patch ethically indefensible given foreseeable harms from insecurity, while silent compliance would normalize coerced, rights-eroding transparency. By protesting while cooperating, I meet duties of care and nonmaleficence yet assert autonomy and privacy through formal objections, coalition-building, and calls for oversight, sunset clauses, and data minimization. I would technically mitigate exposure during the update via compartmentalization, least-privilege logging, cryptographic commitments, and rapid data ephemerality to reduce the intrusion’s scope. This path best balances competing rights and risks, preserves trust, and creates a record to reform future protocols. Residual risks remain—e.g., competitor exploitation—but are outweighed by the near-term necessity to maintain system integrity and the longer-term chance to change policy.