Thank you for the replies and comments. They were helpful. However I sill have a libertarian / laissez faire philosophical objection.
I support the internet security model that acts as police-judge-jury. Hacks & Attacks are ubiquitous, fast, and often beyond repair. The costs in money, identity loss, and other damages can be serious and long lasting.
But I still want the on-scene tactical ability to make an immediate decision to accept or override a security decision. If I hang myself by my actions, I can and will accept it. I hate the patronizing assumption that I am an idiot in these matters, dangerous to myself, and you know what is best for me. You probably, more often than not, 100% correct in that assumption. But I own the computer and I have the right to make the hard calls, and I shouldn't have to apply for permission.
Now smart lawyers may say; "You can talk the talk but can you walk the talk? The first time you make a bad choice, you will turn around and accuse your security provider, such as Avast, of negligence, or not doing their job properly and then seek revenge through tort law." Yes, that is a real problem and all too common in our society. Also, waivers often get thrown out the window as soon as there are problems. What can I say, some law suits are justified and some are not.
We should be able to take risks. Acceptance of Risk, and the Choices and Decisions we make define us as individuals and are a gift of being human.
I think AVAST is the best Security Provider on the market for individuals and in some business environments. But I hate the decision to remove me from my individual security loop and being forced to turn it off completely when I want to venture into the unknown. I can accept the default internet security premise of shoot first and ask questions later, but once in a while I would like to tell Avast "hold your fire."
