Stay in the red zone
It’s a nice idea, and I think a lot of home users would choose a safer, if more limited, online experience.
They sure would but they would sure be wrong in doing so. The problem being that once you go down the safe route you lose power to change. There is no recourse in a safe zone. A safe zone is patrolled, monitored and safety is enforced not by the citizens but by the walls and the builders of the walls. The builders of the walls are given power to choose for you and once they have that power it takes, in most cases, a violent revolution to take their power away.
In the red/green model proposed though you can exit the safe zone whenever you want.
A safe zone however renders you unable to survive in an unsafe zone. You lose the skills and perspective you have to have in a dangerous zone. So when the safe zone crumbles or is overthrown the people inside are left incapable of surviving.
And once you have spent enough time in the safe zone you may have the option to go to the unsafe zone but you won’t do it. You know you will get creamed in the red zone so you cower in apparent safety in the green zone. The freedoms you used to have are gone and you cannot choose anymore.
Most people though will grow frustrated by a safe zone quickly enough to switch to the red zone and remain there. This is what is happening with Microsoft Windows Vista and UAC. Most people turn it off. They go from safe and restricted to unsafe but free. They get hassled, they have security breaches and they curse at Windows but they hate UAC even more and they battle on.
Until we come up with a better idea than red and green we just have to battle on. Just don’t choose green, you’ll regret it and will be powerless to change.