We have a well-established process for managing requests from law enforcement for data about our users: when we receive a request, we notify users that their in

We have a well-established process for managing requests from law enforcement for data about our users: when we receive a request, we notify users that their information has been requested, push back on overly broad requests to protect users’ privacy, and provide transparency around such requests in our transparency report As a non-native speaker of l'inglese, there's two ways my brain parses this - simultaneously: (A) when we receive a request, we notify users (... well knowing they can't do anything ...), push back on overly broad requests to protect users' privacy (i.e., we do push back on requests that request we respect users' privacy, who do you think we are?!) and provide transparency ... ("only") in our "transparency" report I.e., we very well sell the hide of anybody and everybody as quickly as possible, not only abiding by requests but filling in the blanks as well. Then we increment a counter "requests_served++" and include that in our transparancy "report" lol (B) when we receive a request, we notify users (..to warn and enable them..), push back on overly broad requests IN ORDER TO protect users' privacy and provide transparency (as best as possible) I.e., we are the good guys and actually try to serve our users as best as possible. The sentence "we push back on overly broad requests to protect users' privacy" is at the center of this dichotomy for me. To clarify: we push back on (overly broad requests to protect users' privacy) vs. we push back on (overly broad requests) [in order] to protect users' privacy. To you native speakers: is there doubt which of the two are meant for you?