I personally will continue to use Mullvad for the time being. What it represents as an institution and a force in the online privacy sphere outweighs one donation by an individual to a fringe political party.

I do think the statement by Mullvad is fair. The company is 50% owned by Daniel Berntsson and Fredrik Strömberg.

Strömberg has stated that he and others at Mullvad disagree and don’t like what Berntsson has done. But what he did he did as a private individual and not in as a representative of Mullvad (although being a co-owner that is a difficult circle to square).

The Örebro Party’s take on “remigration” is wild. I really wished it was just a populist party that wanted stricter immigration controls but to quote Örebro Party co-founder Markus Allard

“They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish.”

I can’t find any direct source if Daniel Berntsson explicitly agrees with this stance. It would be pretty shocking coming from a self professed “libertarian anarchist” … well not that shocking…

It’s disappointing and hopefully the backlash will make Berntsson reconsider his position but I personally don’t feel as justified as some others here in throwing Mullvad under the bus.

This ruling states that using a VPN to access content which is public domain in one jurisdiction but copyright protected in another is legal and not the responsibility of the VPN provider or the site providing the content.

But does it apply to activity by users on VPNs like torrenting of copyright protected material?