This is not a post about software.

It is a post about where my business, my clients’ data, and my private communications legally live in a time of rapidly shifting politics, human rights concerns, and unprecedented technological power.

Over the years I have recommended countless digital tools to clients. Website platforms. Hosting providers. Email marketing systems. Booking tools. Payment gateways. My role has always been to quietly choose what works best and safest for the people who trust me with their online presence.

Recently, I made a decision that felt much bigger than a software preference.

I moved my business email, documents, calendar, and storage away from Google and into Proton.

Not because Google is “bad.”
Not because it does not work well. In fact, it works brilliantly.

I moved because of data.
And because of politics.
And because of jurisdiction.

Why This Is Also a Political Decision

We are living in a time of massive technological acceleration and equally massive political instability. I have my eyes open. I can see what is happening in the United States.

We are witnessing human rights violations that are deeply disturbing. We are seeing people detained, removed, and processed in ways that raise serious concerns about due process and civil protection. Legal frameworks that once felt solid now feel uncertain and vulnerable to rapid change.

If a government can treat its own citizens in this way, what happens when that focus extends beyond its borders?

That is not a question I am willing to ignore.

This may sound dramatic to some people. But history shows us how quickly societies can slide into situations that once felt unthinkable. Situations that start to resemble dystopian fiction rather than democratic reality.

I am not willing for my business, my data, or my clients’ private communications to sit under the jurisdiction of a government moving in this direction.

This is me taking a conscious stance as a business owner.

I am choosing to place my work, my communications, and my clients’ information in a country whose legal structure is built around privacy, neutrality, and protection of personal data.

The Question Most of Us Never Ask

Most of us use Gmail, Google Drive, Google Docs, and Google Calendar without thinking twice. It is inexpensive, beautifully integrated, and incredibly convenient.

But the real question is not “does this work well?”

The real question is:

What happens to the information we put into these systems?

Your emails contain contracts, invoices, conversations with clients, private details, attachments, passport copies, bank statements, health conversations, legal discussions.

Your calendar shows where you are and when.

Your documents contain your intellectual property.

This is the digital core of your business and your personal life.

Data Harvesting and Cross-Platform Tracking

Google’s business model is built on data. Not in a sinister way, but in a very open, documented, technical way.

Google tracks user behaviour across its own platforms automatically. Your activity in Gmail, YouTube, Google Search, Google Maps, Chrome, Android, and websites using Google Analytics all contribute to a behavioural profile used for advertising and preference modelling.

There is another layer that many people do not consider.

Conversations that happen inside apps owned by the same parent companies influence what you later see advertised.

I have personally seen adverts related to topics discussed in **WhatsApp** conversations within hours or days of those conversations happening.

We are told message content is encrypted. Yet the advertising signals tell a different story.

Even if you never click an advert, the profiling still exists.

Data is the currency.

The Part People Rarely Consider: Jurisdiction

This was the turning point for me.

Google is a United States company. That means data stored within its systems is subject to U.S. law, including national security legislation and intelligence requests. Under certain orders, companies can be required to provide access to user data and may not be allowed to inform the user.

This is simply how the legal framework works.

In contrast, Proton is based in Switzerland.

Swiss privacy law is among the strictest in the world. It is outside U.S. and EU intelligence alliances, and any request for data must go through Swiss courts and meet very high legal thresholds.

But there is an even more important difference.

The Technical Difference That Changes Everything

Proton Mail is built with:

• End-to-end encryption
• Zero-access architecture
• Minimal data collection
• No tracking

This means Proton technically **cannot** read the contents of your emails. The encryption happens before the message leaves your device. Even Proton itself cannot access what you write.

With Gmail, emails are encrypted in transit and at rest, but Google’s systems can still technically access the content in order to provide features, filtering, and personalisation.

That is a fundamental difference.

Why This Matters for Non-Technical People

You do not need to understand encryption to understand this:

One system can read your emails.
The other system cannot.

One system builds a behavioural profile from your activity across platforms.
The other does not track you at all.

One system operates under U.S. jurisdiction.
The other operates under Swiss privacy law.

Why I Changed as a Business Owner

As someone responsible for client websites, client emails, client data, and sensitive documents, I realised I had a duty to think more carefully about where this information sits.

I now include this line in my email footer:

• Sent with Proton Mail secure email
• End-to-end encryption
• Zero-access architecture
• Minimal data collection
• No tracking
• Strict Swiss privacy laws

Transparency note: referral link.

This Is Not a Sales Pitch

Google works beautifully. For many people it will remain absolutely fine.

But if you are a business owner or anyone who handles private conversations and sensitive information, it is worth knowing that there is an alternative designed specifically around privacy rather than data.

I made this change because technology has advanced rapidly, because I am paying attention to how the world is shifting, and because I believe it is responsible to choose tools that align not only with efficiency, but with ethics and human rights.

This is not a new way of thinking for me.

I have always made business and personal decisions based on ethical considerations. Many years ago, I stopped banking with a financial institution after learning it was funding the Dakota Access Pipeline. That decision had nothing to do with convenience and everything to do with values.

The same principle applies here.

Where governments fail to apply pressure, citizens and business owners still have choices. We decide which companies we pay. We decide which jurisdictions we place our data in. We decide which organisations we collaborate with.

I have also declined to work with a company whose operating environment conflicted with my personal stance on human rights. Not as a dramatic gesture. Simply as a consistent application of the same principles I have always used.

My business choices reflect my values as much as my technical requirements.

This is my quiet refusal to place my work, my clients’ information, and my professional collaborations inside systems and environments that I do not believe are aligned with basic human rights protections.