Several key EU regulations are slated to impact startups in 2025. The Data Act will govern industrial data sharing, requiring companies to make data available to users and others upon request, potentially affecting data-driven business models. The revised Payment Services Directive (PSD3) aims to enhance payment security and foster open banking, impacting fintechs with stricter requirements. The Cyber Resilience Act mandates enhanced cybersecurity for connected devices, adding compliance burdens on hardware and software developers. Additionally, the EU's AI Act, though expected later, could still influence product development strategies throughout 2025 with its tiered risk-based approach to AI regulation. These regulations necessitate careful preparation and adaptation for startups operating within or targeting the EU market.
This Presidential Memorandum directs federal agencies to enhance accountability and customer experience by requiring annual "Learn to Improve" plans. These plans will outline how agencies will collect customer feedback, identify areas for improvement, implement changes, and track progress on key performance indicators related to service delivery and equity. Agencies are expected to leverage data and evidence-based practices to drive these improvements, focusing on streamlining services, reducing burdens on the public, and ensuring equitable outcomes. Progress will be monitored by the Office of Management and Budget, which will publish an annual report summarizing agency efforts and highlighting best practices.
HN commenters are largely critical of the executive order, questioning its efficacy and expressing cynicism about government accountability in general. Several point out the irony of the order coming from an administration often accused of lacking transparency. Some question the practicality of measuring "customer experience" for government services, comparing it to businesses but acknowledging the inherent differences. Others see the order as primarily performative, designed to create a sense of action without meaningful impact. A few express cautious optimism, hoping for genuine improvement but remaining skeptical. The lack of concrete details in the order is a frequent point of concern, leading some to believe it's more about public relations than actual policy change.
Microsoft's blog post announces changes to their Go distribution starting with Go 1.24 to better align with Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). While previous versions offered a partially FIPS-compliant mode, Go 1.24 introduces a fully compliant distribution built with the BoringCrypto module, ensuring all cryptographic operations adhere to FIPS 140-3. This change requires updating import paths for affected packages and may introduce minor breaking changes for some users. Microsoft provides guidance and tooling to help developers transition smoothly to the new FIPS-compliant distribution, encouraging adoption for enhanced security.
HN commenters discuss the implications of Microsoft's decision to ship a FIPS-compliant Go distribution. Some express concern about the potential for reduced performance and increased complexity due to the use of the BoringCrypto module. Others question the actual value of FIPS compliance, particularly in Go where the standard crypto library is already considered secure. There's discussion around the specific cryptographic primitives affected and whether the move is driven by government contract requirements. A few commenters appreciate Microsoft's contribution, seeing it as a positive step for Go's adoption in regulated environments. Some also speculate about the possibility of this change eventually becoming the default in Go's standard library.
Zach Holman's post "Nontraditional Red Teams" advocates for expanding the traditional security-focused red team concept to other areas of a company. He argues that dedicated teams, separate from existing product or engineering groups, can provide valuable insights by simulating real-world user behavior and identifying potential problems with products, marketing campaigns, and company policies. These "red teams" can act as devil's advocates, challenging assumptions and uncovering blind spots that internal teams might miss, ultimately leading to more robust and user-centric products and strategies. Holman emphasizes the importance of empowering these teams to operate independently and providing them the freedom to explore unconventional approaches.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that "red teams" are often misused, focusing on compliance and shallow vulnerability discovery rather than true adversarial emulation. Several highlighted the importance of a strong security culture and open communication for red teaming to be effective. Some commenters shared anecdotes about ineffective red team exercises, emphasizing the need for clear objectives and buy-in from leadership. Others discussed the difficulty in finding skilled red teamers who can think like real attackers. A compelling point raised was the importance of "purple teaming" – combining red and blue teams for collaborative learning and improvement, rather than treating it as a purely adversarial exercise. Finally, some argued that the term "red team" has become diluted and overused, losing its original meaning.
Summary of Comments ( 3 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152937
Hacker News users discussing the upcoming EU regulations generally express concerns about their complexity and potential negative impact on startups. Several commenters predict these regulations will disproportionately burden smaller companies due to the increased compliance costs, potentially stifling innovation and favoring larger, established players. Some highlight specific regulations, like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and discuss their potential consequences for platform interoperability and competition. The platform liability aspect of the DSA is also a point of contention, with some questioning its practicality and effectiveness. Others note the broad scope of these regulations, extending beyond just tech companies, and affecting sectors like manufacturing and AI. A few express skepticism about the EU's ability to effectively enforce these regulations.
The Hacker News post titled "EU regulations to look out for in 2025" linking to a Sifted article about upcoming EU startup regulations generated a moderate discussion with several insightful comments.
Several commenters discussed the potential impact of the EU's Data Act. One user expressed concern that forcing companies to share data with competitors could stifle innovation, arguing that companies may be less inclined to invest in data collection and analysis if they are required to share the fruits of their labor. Another commenter countered this point by suggesting the Data Act could foster innovation by enabling smaller players to access valuable datasets, leveling the playing field and promoting competition. This commenter also pointed out the potential benefit for consumers, who might gain more control over their data and benefit from new services built upon shared data. There was further discussion about the practical implications of the Data Act, with questions raised about how "fair and reasonable compensation" for data access would be determined.
The conversation also touched upon the Digital Services Act (DSA) and its impact on content moderation. One commenter expressed skepticism about the feasibility and effectiveness of enforcing the DSA's requirements for tackling illegal content online, particularly for smaller platforms. The complexity of defining and identifying "illegal content" across different jurisdictions was also highlighted.
The Platform to Business Regulation was mentioned, with a commenter noting the potential for increased transparency in platform-business relationships, which could benefit smaller businesses operating within these ecosystems.
Finally, the broader theme of EU regulatory overreach was raised by a few commenters. Some expressed concerns about the cumulative effect of these regulations on startups and the potential for hindering innovation. Others argued that the regulations were necessary to protect consumers and promote fairer competition.
While no single comment dominated the discussion, the thread provided a balanced overview of various perspectives on the potential impact of the upcoming EU regulations on the startup ecosystem and the digital economy as a whole.