Mullvad VPN was subject to a search warrant – customer data not compromised

- I have many friends in law enforcement. I've been on many ride alongs and seen probable cause, phoning in warrants, etc on the street in person.

- One of my friends is on a county level SWAT team and executes high-risk criminal search warrants all of the time.

- Another one of my friends is an agent with a criminal federal law enforcement agency (IRS CI) that deals with a lot of "soft"/white collar/financial/computer/crypto/corporate crime. Including lawyers that have perpetuated financial schemes and crimes against their clients (it's amazing how many sleazy lawyers embezzle money from their clients in personal injury, settlements, etc). They execute A LOT of search warrants.

With this there are several types of situations I've noticed:

1) SWAT team friend gets an early AM no-knock warrant and an army effectively shock and awes you in your sleep at 3 AM. This is the "they can and will destroy your house" as they can do things like rip your walls apart because they heard you have drugs in them or whatever. This is usually a lot of warrants, drug cases, etc where the justification for the search/arrest is an undercover narcotics buy or something like that and cause can be presented that the subjects are violent, armed, and/or likely to destroy evidence with a daytime "knock and announce" warrant. From what I've gathered the colloquial term for these groups is "door kickers".

2) IRS CID friend goes out to have a "friendly" chat/interview with someone. There's no warrant but it's a federal felony to lie to most federal law enforcement so they'll do a lot of "ask questions they already know the answer to" because the lie itself is a crime and they'll leverage or convict you on that alone. No one ever talk to them. Seriously. Not ever. They'll walk away but it's likely not the last you'll see of them (they'll come back with a warrant).

3a) IRS CI (or similar) comes back with a warrant. From my understanding there are special steps and justifications that must be presented for a search warrant to be executed before 6 AM and after something like 9 PM. From what my friend tells me they show up after 6 AM-ish and "bang on the door and shout police and search warrant multiple times loud enough for the entire neighborhood to hear". Compared to SWAT team friend these are very gentle and reasonable (approaching what you're describing). From what I can remember they very rarely even physically force entry. The subject politely and calmly answers the door, they put their guns away, and everyone does their thing.

3b) What you're describing. If the warrant is for a business or individual known to be at a business during business hours they'll calmly walk in during business hours with their cool blue yellow-lettering "raid jackets" that communicate "we mean business" compared to their usual dress suit (with gun on hip) "uniform". This is the "Ok everyone stop what you're doing, step away from your computer, and go over there". From what I understand it's amazing how intimidating a cheap blue nylon jacket that says "IRS" or "FBI" on it can be.

While these scenarios FEEL very different they are more similar than dissimilar. In all cases simply having a lawyer present isn't going to modulate their behavior significantly - they're going to do what they came to do. Meth lab and a poor nobody? They'll definitely go harder. Billionaire former president? By the book but they're still going to get what they came for.

What people don't seem to understand about warrants is the fundamental shift in power they represent:

1) We have laws. Laws that govern what anyone can do - including law enforcement and government.

2) The police operate under these laws as police.

3) When law enforcement needs to comply with the law while being able to extend governmental power they apply to the independent judicial branch of government to review and act as a check against their governmental (LE) power.

4) At the point a judge signs a warrant law enforcement is empowered by the entire judicial branch of government to largely do whatever is necessary (within other laws, policies, and procedures) to enforce what is now (effectively) a court order.

So at this point law enforcement is actually doing two things:

1) They are furthering their investigation.

2) They are satisfying a court order.

So... The support here of this bizarre Mullvad statement is bewildering to me. While this is anecdotal and very US-focused there isn't a functioning government/justice system in the world where this scenario makes any sense whatsoever:

1) Law enforcement has an investigation.

2) They assembled enough evidence to pursue a search warrant.

3) They were granted said warrant.

4) They sent out SIX (presumably) armed police officers from the national police to execute a search and enforce the warrant.

5) Even after all of this... They arrive and are essentially talked out of doing anything because the subject of the warrant said "we don't have that".

I'm really trying to understand the support for the (essentially) impossible scenario described in this statement from Mullvad.

Thank you for your recognition on my zeal against police overreach - what I've learned over hours and years of my curiosity and peppering these friends with questions is "don't talk to the police, ESPECIALLY the Feds in the US". When I received training on interacting with federal law enforcement in a corporate context the script was:

"Hi I'm agent X from Y and I have a few questions".

All you say is: "Do you have a business card? Thank you - someone will be in touch." With that "someone" being an attorney.

Do not say another single word. If it's a search (3 AM SWAT or nice conversation in your office) things can be calm, polite, and cordial but at the end of the day LE has an incredible amount of power at this point and when it comes down to it they're going to use it and get what they're looking for.

I used Assange specifically because I think it's pretty clear the lone superpower in the world (the United States) clearly threw their weight around on the Assange situation. It's not a leap (at all) to think a popular VPN provider that (due to the nature of their business) likely attracts the interest of law enforcement from governments around the world - almost certainly including the US - would trigger similar levels of interest at the highest levels of government internationally.

Rape is clearly abhorrent but I think it's pretty obvious Assange had a gigantic target on his back because he pissed off and embarrassed the United States. Any rape investigation should be taken very seriously but when you look at the Assange situation it's VERY clear the aggressiveness and pursuit of that was far beyond what is likely typical in those kinds of investigations.

I think the same would happen in this scenario and anyone who says "oh they're just a VPN provider Sweden wouldn't take it too seriously" is pretty naive.

Search and seizure laws are designed to protect citizens from the police and from the state, not some humanitarian protection for criminals