Here is what I consider the key section: > The privacy of PyPI users is of utmost concern to PSF and the PyPI Administrators, and we are committed to protectin

Here is what I consider the key section: > The privacy of PyPI users is of utmost concern to PSF and the PyPI Administrators, and we are committed to protecting user data from disclosure whenever possible. In this case, however, PSF determined with the advice of counsel that our only course of action was to provide the requested data. I, as Director of Infrastructure of the Python Software Foundation, fulfilled the requests in consultation with PSF's counsel. The first part of this section contradicts all of the rest. If user data privacy is of "utmost concern", then it is a concern above fulfilling legal obligations under US law. Plus, such supposed obligations must be staunchly fought before even considering whether or not to observe them. So, in fact, user data privacy is a minor concern for the Python Software Foundation, while swift prostration towards the US federal state is what's of utmost concern. Of course, they almost admit it themselves. If we carefully read the second clause, they don't say "we're committed to protecting user data from disclosure", but - the "we're committed... when possible". So, they're saying that if they believe it isn't possible to protect, they have _no_ commitment to try their utmost to protect. i.e. when they see fit, user data protection is _not_ a concern at all. ... ok, ok, it is a public relations concern.