You know there is another aspect to this that ties in with the discussion on where we are, where we are going and where we need to go . Often the people who author a reg, or issue a command do so in ignorance of the secondary and tertiary effects.

What I mean is, consider the author of the reg was issued guidance to issue a policy which safeguards information that might be harmful - and he did so with gusto- but he did so from the perspective of his branch solely. The review was also performed in branch or institution bias and so it was published.

I'm not buying too much into the conspiracy piece - although I have seen people take advantage of regs to support their lethargy, or cover their fear of risk. Its a concern that so important of a reg seems to have escaped a thorugh review of its impacts in any other area except for how well it "protects" information and operations. With any decisions there are pros and cons, and things to be gained and things that will be lost - nothing is free.

From T.X. Hammes recent MILREVIEW article on 4GW/5GW
Strategic shift. Strategically, insurgent campaigns have shifted from military campaigns supported by information operations to strategic communications campaigns supported by guerrilla and terrorist operations. (italics added) While there is no generally agreed upon definition of 4GW, according to the definition I wrote in 2003, “Fourth generation warfare uses all available networks—political, economic, social, and military—to convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. It is an evolved form of insurgency.”
Our current regulation writters and reviewers may not be versed in how 4GW/5GW are evolving, and thus may not be considering all the aspects of decisions to truncate access, positive and negative side effects, etc. LTC Yingling speaks to this quite well in his argument.