I think you have taken the example bit too far and lost the essence!
let me summarise, after thanking you for your opinion, which I think really adds to the purpose of democracy and free speech, the very opposite of whom you are defending !!! (this site could be blocked by some ISP for example..)
First of all I do not use the same road with you as when we are in the car. I paid for access to internet and not to be protected. Period. But again, I give you the benefit of doubt. Let us say that, genuinely, there are some sites that have to be blocked. Say, they have white background and Arial font! Let's not stay on measuring the ethics or standards of why or whom is judging this. The essence is that the control is INVOLUNTEER. I did NOT accepted this control.
And your example of what if my PC gets infected and someone else got hurt is beyond logic.
Why, if someone steals your car and crash it on Swisscom building (sic 😉 will then YOU pay the damage?!
If it happens, what a lawyer will look is what is called Mens Rea (latin, for 'bad intention') meaning, did you deliberately wrote that program trying to invade the the other guys computer? did you deliberately try to fake him and steal his id? Then, we look on cui bono (who is benefit by this). if I accidentally fall victim of phishging scam (no mens rea) and then another guy goes and pretends Im me and takes money from you, sorry but its not my fault (or yours) DESPITE the fact that Swisscom tried or did not tried to protect both of us.
Your example has absolutely no reasoning *as the court decision* (sorry fellow colleagues) and the only possible excuse would be a drastic prove that this is done for the public benefit (which in this case, you would need to prove me that the XYZ site is dangerous for EVERYONE that for examplke does not a PhD in Computing - which is hardly the case).
I do appreciate your research and thank you for the links.
And at least, even if I (reluctantly) agree with this policy, even if we say that, you know, most of people are indeed in need of that protection (which is hardly the case, but I am with you, lets say they are) then at least Swisscom should have provide the courtesy of letting me choose.
Even Windows and IE are letting me download and install non-certified applications! Why not Swisscom?
I also agree that this is indeed a thin line (for them but also for me - and yes, I do agree that all those disgusting sites should have been blown away not just be banned). The duty however of a society if to warn and educate better the people (which, I think Swisscom is doing, to some extend, and I do congratulate them for this, indeed I do) but not allow the protection to be enforced. At least not at the freedom of information.
Despite the fact that, unfortunately, sometimes the information is trash or worst..
I think that the best think that they could do, would be:
1. Provide a link of why they do this, as a defend to their behaviour (the court order etc etc)
2. Provide a link where we all can possibly complain when accidentally Swisscom blocks a site that is not to be blocked (we are all humans, they make mistakes too, yes?)
3. Provide a link, even with a captha if you want, to let us continue if we agree that we understand the risks.
A cold 'stop' really makes everybody angry!
Thank you for the dialog and for reading that down!
