
Pentagon should shave defense procurement regulation: industry group
WASHINGTON, June 9 (Reuters) - As the Pentagon overhauls procurement regulations, an industry group that represents defense and aerospace companies says it identified over 50 regulatory requirements that discourage companies from doing business with the government.
The Pentagon has embarked on a renewed attempt to change how the Pentagon acquires weapons and support systems. One example was a March memo signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth changing how the Pentagon buys software.
In a June 3 letter to Hegseth, the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), which represents a wide swath of defense companies including Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N), opens new tab, Boeing Co (BA.N), opens new tab General Dynamics Corp (GD.N), opens new tab and others, said its members want to eliminate burdensome regulations that have frustrated them for years.
"The cumulative growth of these requirements over time has created a regulatory framework that itself poses an endemic risk: stifling innovation, diminishing the supplier base, driving up costs, and delaying delivery," said Eric Fanning, the head of the AIA said in the letter.
Key areas AIA targeted for reform include cybersecurity compliance, cost accounting standards, intellectual property rules, and commercial acquisition requirements. Industry leaders have argued these regulations create unnecessary obstacles to an expedited acquisition process.
Particularly problematic were the Cybersecurity Maturation Model Certification requirements, which industry representatives say place substantial risk and liability on prime contractors who must verify compliance throughout their entire supply chain.
Other targeted regulations include Cost Accounting Standards that force companies to maintain separate accounting systems from standard commercial practices, and intellectual property rules that industry claims discourage companies from offering their best technologies to the Pentagon.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Finextra
16 minutes ago
- Finextra
Beyond the binary: Fixing KYC for the LGBTQ+ economy
0 This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community. This Finextra long read series will focus on how the fintech industry can serve underrepresented LGBTQ+ customers during and after Pride Month – a celebration of the LGBTQ+ community and the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer culture. By recognising that many individuals within the LGBTQ+ community, particularly transgender and non-binary individuals, may face challenges obtaining or updating official identification that accurately reflects their affirmed name and gender, financial services players can be supportive. Further, by removing legal barriers, complex procedures, and high costs associated with name and gender marker changes – and prioritising reconciliation of chosen names with legal names – financial institutions and fintech firms can work towards developing identity verification solutions that are inclusive of diverse gender identities and expressions. By addressing this challenge and others, organisations can create more inclusive and equitable experiences for LGBTQ+ individuals and families. Creating identity systems that respect chosen names and gender identity The biggest technical challenges in creating inclusive identity systems that respect chosen names and gender identity include ensuring system-wide consistency, updating existing systems and databases, and addressing potential biases in facial recognition and other technologies. In conversation with Meri Williams, CTO, Pleo, integrating these changes are 'just not that hard.' They continue to explain that 'technical issues should never get in the way of basic human dignity, and I genuinely think when people hide behind 'it's hard technically' they usually haven't even properly investigated how to do it. They are of course some archaic legacy systems with gender and names hard-coded, but those are just as likely to cause problems for international customers (e.g. not everyone in the world has a surname!) as they are for trans customers.' Williams also references how many cultures have different concepts of family names or preferred names – calling out how in South Africa, because of noemnaam, which means 'the name you are called', systems are accustomed to accommodating this. Pri Nagashima, VP of data, analytics and AI, Pleo, advises that data collection must also be respectful of users' gender identity and sexual orientation – while still enabling strong analytics. 'We really do keep data collection to what's absolutely essential, always giving people clear choices and respecting their privacy. If we do need something related to identity for a legitimate business reason, we make it optional and are crystal clear about why we're asking. We want to empower users, removing needless stress to set teams free, so it's about helping them visualise a better way to work, rather than just hammering them with information,' Nagashima explores. Balancing KYC/AML with the need for inclusion in identity verification processes A risk-based approach that prioritises user experience requires careful consideration of the specific context and the needs of the individuals being verified, while also ensuring that compliance obligation are met. Financial players, even in these circumstances, must implement more stringent verification processes for higher value transactions, allowing for more streamlined processes for lower risk cases. Alongside this, leveraging automation and technology can simplify the verification process, providing options, protecting customer data and remaining compliant with KYC and AML regulations. As Monzo CTO, Williams explains that the early engineering team happened to have a number of trans engineers and 'they were brave enough to share how it felt to have their 'deadnames' used by official systems and banks and similar. So a couple of our most senior engineers in Security and FinCrime took it on as a challenge: how could we respect people's gender and accommodate the fact we needed government-issued ID that often didn't reflect it accurately? 'The answer was a combination of technical and training. For instance, Customer Operations were trained to never ask what someone's 'real gender' was but instead to be clear when we needed to know what gender was on their ID documents. And we made the systems ensure that people were never called by their ID document name, but always by the name they told us they wanted to be known as. This can seem small, but like so many acts of inclusion, it benefits people far beyond the initial group, even if you're just like me and used to your full name only being used when your grandma is angry! (I'm Meri to everyone, only Meredith if I'm in trouble!!).' Embedding inclusivity into the product development lifecycle In their current role at Pleo, Williams explains that user research with diverse participants must be prioritised in order to foster a culture of belonging within the team, and embrace accessibility-first design principles. 'First of all, we try to have a team that is as representative as possible. If we reflect our customers, we are more likely to be able to understand and meet their needs. We supplement that with a real focus on user research and understanding – what we don't immediately know from our own experiences we have to get from well-designed research. We also have a Product Development Lifecycle which defines how we go from assessing opportunities → discovery → development → testing → deployment, and have peppered this with reminders to consider different needs and users, not just from an LGBTQ+ point of view, but also e.g. accessibility for disabled users,' Williams says. Being aware of individual and group biases and actively working to mitigate their impact on the design process can encourage organisations to embrace human-centred design, accessibility-first design and one that regularly assesses and iterates. Also, employee resource groups (ERGs) being involved in the product development process and help to gain diverse perspectives. Rethinking data policies to avoid reinforcing exclusion Fintech firms must take the time to audit for bias in AI models too, particularly where identity data intersects with risk scoring or onboarding decisions. Nagashima mentions that Pleo are 'big believers in speaking the truth and not hiding things. For AI, that means rigorous, ongoing audits and a strong emphasis on transparency and accountability. We're constantly checking our models with diverse datasets, looking for any hidden biases that might creep in from historical data.' Data collection also requires a fine balance. Nagashima adds: 'Over-collecting can alienate people, raise privacy concerns, and just add unnecessary complexity. Under-collecting, on the other hand, means you might miss important insights needed to build truly inclusive products or might not meet regulatory requirements.' In the context of KYC/AML, financial institutions must rethink their data policies to avoid reinforcing exclusion, particularly for transgender and nonbinary users. 'We talk to our customers the way we talk to each other, and that means being genuine and empathetic. For KYC/AML, it's about being flexible and understanding, especially when dealing with identity. We need to ensure our policies accommodate diverse identity documents and names, rather than forcing people into restrictive categories. This means often collaborating with regulators to establish frameworks that guide ethical and responsible AI use, ensuring transparency and inclusivity. Our focus is on removing needless stress to set teams free, making the process as smooth and inclusive as possible,' Nagashima says. Williams adds that CTOs can help normalise the integration of inclusive UX practices across the fintech ecosystem by making it 'part of the 'definition of done' i.e. a feature or product is not complete or ready for production usage until it meets ALL user needs, not just a subset of able-bodied people.'


The Sun
20 minutes ago
- The Sun
Apple renames of one of its biggest brands in shock makeover – and I'm convinced the iPhone is next up for a new name
IS it time for the iPhone to get a new name? Absolutely – and it's looking likelier than ever. Today, Apple decided to totally rebrand its operating systems. That's what your gadgets run on. We've got iOS for iPhone, iPadOS for iPad, macOS for Mac, and so on. 6 6 Their names had become a bit mad, honestly. This year, we were expecting to see iOS 19, iPadOS 19, macOS 16, tvOS 19, watchOS 12, and visionOS 3. What a mess! Thankfully Apple finally (and sensibly) said iBye to that nonsense, and replaced all of those numbers with the year. So now we've got iOS 26, iPadOS 26, macOS 26, tvOS 26, watchOS 26, and visionOS 26 all due out later this year – and only likely to be replaced in September 2026. Then we'll get 27, presumably. Now anyone can look at their iPhone and easily work out whether it's running the latest software. And if you're buying a new model, it's fairly easy to check if it can get the latest download – or if it's going to be left abandoned without updates, features, and security fixes. Yearly naming is just common sense. You can see where I'm going with this. Apple, it's time to do the same for iPhone. Later this year, Apple is widely expected to launch the iPhone 17. Please don't. Call it the iPhone 26 instead and be done with it. iPhone 16e review – I've secretly tested Apple's cheapest mobile and I love the new button but that's not the best bit As a technology journalist, I'm regularly asked the same questions by people. 'What's the latest iPhone?', 'is that the latest iPhone?', 'what iPhone are we on now?', and 'is my iPhone the newest one?'. I don't blame people for not keeping up. It's messy – but easily fixed. It wouldn't be the first time Apple had skipped a number. Long-time Apple watchers will not that there never was an iPhone 9. 6 6 We went straight from iPhone 8 to the (still curiously named) iPhone X, which stood for iPhone 10. This came out in 2017 in celebration of the 10-year iPhone anniversary. But we needn't wait for 2027 for another iPhone rebrand. Let's just get on with it. Apple is also clearly willing to experiment. Remember the the iPhone 3GS? The iPhone XS? The iPhone 5C? Last year's iPhone 16e? They all had weird names, and Apple still flogged bucketloads of them. Changing the name of the iPhone clearly isn't a mortal wound. So let's ditch this whole bonkers naming system and just call it iPhone 26. It'll get a few jokes on the first year, and then no one will think twice about it. It'll just work. Samsung is already playing ball. This year it released the Samsung Galaxy S25. The year before that? The Galaxy S24. And before that? The S23. Nice sensible names. Names you can take home to your parents. Last year, Apple put out an iPhone 16 running iOS 18, that you could pair with an Apple Watch Series 10 and a pair of Apple AirPods 4. I spend all of my time thinking about tech, and even I struggle to keep up. It makes sense for other products to not follow a yearly system. The successor to the PlayStation 5 should not be called the PlayStation 2028. That will only beg the question 'is there a PlayStation 2029?' the very next year. Parents would be driven to insanity. But for annual (or near-annual) products – like the iPhone and software updates– it makes much more sense to just go with the year. There's probably some marketing guru in Apple's Cupertino, California HQ worriedly predicting that releasing new iPhones with yearly names will make the old models sound even older – and put people off. But that might also drive people to snap up the newer models too, so the grand Apple coffers won't go empty. And it'll make it easier to buy older gadgets and refurbished devices, which is good for wallets and the planet. It's time to get with the times. Literally.


Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
From Time Inc to Discovery: Warner Bros breakup puts spotlight on checkered M&A history
June 9 (Reuters) - Warner Bros Discovery (WBD.O), opens new tab, home to HBO and CNN, said on Monday it would split into two companies, the latest twist in its decades-long history of high-stakes mergers and breakups.