Computer systems should be regulated for safety, which includes confidentiality and integrity, like everything else.
If the government had not intervened, those banks would have been bankrupted, and rightfully so, because they essentially made a giant bet on the housing market and lost.
The government intervention in the case of the banks prevented a valuable feedback mechanism from taking place, whereby the "bad players" (as in, bad at the game --- at gambling) would have learned from their mistakes. So instead of the negative feedback of bankruptcy, they got the positive feedback of bailouts, and we should expect to see another financial crisis in the not-too-distant future.
What remains to be seen is whether the government itself has a working feedback mechanism for this situation. Will they bail out the banks again? in other words.
What does "regulated" mean to you?
No matter what our worldviews, consumers won't obtain more capability and time. I'm a technical professional and educated person, and I certainly don't have the time or resources to answer those questions, even the very last one.
> What does "regulated" mean to you?
I don't understand the question. In the case of IT security, I can think of many ways to do it: Liability for bad security, rules requiring good security , etc. I don't know enough about regulation to know what works and in what situations, but some minimal rules and liability sound good.