Per the Mullvad Leta section of the Desktop Browsers page, “…it is possible for Mullvad to correlate search queries and Mullvad VPN accounts. For this reason we discourage the use of Mullvad Leta…” As far as I can tell, the only way Mullvad Leta links search activity with accounts is by incrementing a counter towards a limit of 100 searches daily, which is purged at the end of the day. Given that they have been audited, the results of which proving that they do not correlate searches with account numbers, how is using Mullvad Leta any worse than using DuckDuckGo for example? In either case, the user is relying on a no-logs policy and recommending Mullvad VPN means trusting Mullvad to protect all internet traffic, not just searches.
No. When you use Mullvad VPN + Mullvad Leta, you are relying on a no-logs policy. When you use Mullvad VPN + DuckDuckGo, you are relying on Mullvad VPN hiding your IP from DuckDuckGo, which is a more robust protection.
Understood. However, I still believe that the wording could be tweaked as it could be construed as saying that Mullvad simply relies on their lack of information about subscribers to protect users of Leta when in fact they have architected the service around disassociating searches from account numbers.
I’m not sure how those two scenarios are actually different, in either case it is just a matter of them choosing to not collect this information.