Does the SEC understand what a "principles-based approach" to regulation even is?

Marcy Gordon of the AP reports today that the SEC is easing up on some Sarbanes-Oxley regulations, specifically those which "require companies to assess the strength of their internal checks and balances to guard against fraud." She continues:

The framework calls for greater use of an approach based on principles rather than ironclad rules, which is in line with a recommendation of a private-sector group that has been pushing for eased business regulations.
The SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board have worked for several months to resolve differences over the rules. Some experts and investor advocates complain that the SEC is strong-arming the board to weaken regulatory standards.
Officials of the SEC and the accounting board say they are striking a balance between protecting investors and reducing the financial record-keeping required of companies. The SEC and the oversight board want final rules in place by June so they would apply to audits of all 2007 statements.

Are SEC officials really talking about "striking a balance" - with the clear implication that reducing the burden on regulated companies will necessarily reduce investor protections as well? If so, then clearly they still Don't Get It.

The point of a principles-based approach is that it increases investor protections, if done well, since companies can focus on the stuff that matters, rather than putting all their efforts into running everything past compliance lawyers who care much more about not breaking the rules than they do about doing the right thing.