Is this not just another case of weak leadership and an unwillingness to face up to military discipline? In which case rules are brilliant.
I have taken countless photographs of aeroplanes, landscape and sunset whilst flying Her Majesty's aircraft. (And would continue to do so if we still had the ones I drove) I don't think any would constitute a security risk.
On the other hand, if I were to be that stupid that I took a picture of a radar scanner, SF mate or weapon event I would expect to be keel hauled.
Is there a security issue with cameras? If so who caused it? Court martial the guy and no-one else will do it.
Or are we just in a world where we have to have a rule 'just in case' - like the ability to be vicariously offended..in that you weren't offended but thought someone might be; so you deemed what was said 'offensive'. There was no security risk, but there was a chance that someone could think there was, so we mitigated the possibility (of a chance) with a brand new rule. And a six month 'not carrying cameras' currency. Those out of currency will have to carry cameras for a dual and a solo before recommencing no camera ops. By day.
Perchance we are simply further into the turgid world of a rule for everything.