Question: What’s the most expensive vehicle barrier at a busy airport terminal?  

Answer: The one that fails.  -Rob Reiter

On January 23, 2026, a vehicle breached the entrance of Detroit Metropolitan Airport’s McNamara Terminal (DTW), injuring six people before crashing into a Delta Air Lines ticket counter.

The DTW incident was not terrorism. It was not a coordinated attack. It was an impulsive act by a single individual. But it raises a critical question: what  could the outcome have been if it had been intentional?

It exposed a critical gap in perimeter protection at one of the busiest airports in the United States.

Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW) serves more than 30 million passengers annually. Thousands of employees and airline personnel rely on the facility’s infrastructure, operations and security systems to function seamlessly. In environments operating at this scale, security failures are rarely isolated—they are systemic.

This event was not a terrorist attack. But airports have been on notice for years that terminals are vulnerable to deliberate vehicle incursions, and DTW had not adequately addressed that risk.

That requires layered protection aligned to specific threats. Fences deter pedestrian and animal intrusion. Gates control  traffic access. Ballistic glass provides resistance to blast and gunfire. Bollards and barrier systems are intended to stop vehicle-based attacks.

In this case, DTW did not scale protection appropriately. The bollards installed at the terminal entrance were not capable of stopping even a passenger vehicle, leaving a clear vulnerability at a primary access point.

The standard of care requires that foreseeable threats are addressed with measures capable of stopping those threats. For vehicle incursions, barrier systems must be designed to withstand the impact forces of a vehicle of a given weight traveling at a given speed. National standards exist, with crash ratings established through ASTM testing.

At this terminal entrance, the installed bollard system was not crash-rated to withstand the impact that occurred. This is evident for two reasons:

Perimeter protection is measured by what happens at the moment of impact. In this case, it failed. The question now is not whether the threat was understood, but why the protection in place was not capable of stopping it.

On Site the Day of the Incident!  -Rob Miller

As a Detroit-area resident who frequently travels, I’ve passed those bollards hundreds of times since they were installed. I had always assumed they were designed and installed to stop a vehicle.

I coincidentally landed shortly after the incident and was able to see the aftermath firsthand. Two things stood out immediately.

First, I made a bad assumption.

The bollards were not designed to stop a vehicle—they were simply a visual deterrent. This is what we refer to as security theater: something that looks like a security measure but does not actually provide protection.

Second, there is a broader concern for the security provider community. Initial statements from airport officials suggested the bollards were “supposed to have stopped a vehicle and did not.” That raises a more important question: whether the system was properly specified, installed and aligned to the actual threat.

DTW subsequently installed concrete barriers at terminal entrances and stated the airport was “more secure now than it was last week.” While these measures may provide an immediate visual deterrent, free-standing concrete barriers are not typically engineered to stop a vehicle under impact conditions. That response raises questions about whether the solution was aligned with established perimeter protection practices.

There are clearly gaps in the physical security approach. My hope is that this incident leads to a more rigorous assessment—one that involves qualified experts, properly evaluates risk and addresses the vulnerabilities that still exist.

Concrete barriers installed outside the DTW terminal entrance following the incident, serving as a visible but interim vehicle mitigation measure.

Rob Reiter is the Co-Founder of the Storefront Safety Council.

Robert Miller, PSP, CDT, is an Independent Consultant and Subject Matter Expert in Fences, Gates, Bollards, and Barriers at Imperial PCS.

Capture → Extraction → Encoding → Storage → Matching

An attempt at decoding the 5 steps in biometric processing (for novices)

We are living through a shift in how we secure our perimeters. As security becomes more automated and identity-driven, one question remains: Are we ready for it?

From Science Fiction to the Perimeter Fence Line

We’ve seen this before, just not in real life (yet).

• Darth Vader didn’t badge into the Death Star
• The Starship bridge recognized Captain Kirk’s voice instantly
• Replicants in Blade Runner were detected through eye-based analysis
• George Jetson paid—and accessed services—with his face, voice and PIN

What used to be fiction is now showing up at our front gates, turnstiles and loading docks.

Biometrics—what I call AID2entry technology—are no longer just about convenience. It’s stronger security that helps “AID” who gets through the perimeter… and who doesn’t.

The New Perimeter: Identity at the Edge

Traditionally, perimeter security was reactive. It required asking a basic question: Does this person entering my facility even have a badge? A gap that can have serious consequences.

Today, we can proactively verify identity using both passive and active cues—answering “this is the person they claim to be,” before they reach the gate.

This shift is massive.

Once identity becomes a control layer for entry, the perimeter transforms from a barrier into an intelligent decision point.

And that decision is powered by five steps in the biometric process below.

Capture → Extraction → Encoding → Storage → Matching

Let’s walk through the steps with perimeter protection in mind:

Important: This process cannot begin without proper consent, which varies significantly by state in the U.S. Consult a security professional to understand AI privacy and biometric regulations where AID2entry technology is being deployed.

Identity Becomes the Security Layer

The future of enterprise security is not just stronger locks or better passwords—it is stronger identity assurance.

By transforming biological and behavioral traits into encrypted mathematical templates, biometric systems create a unified framework for both physical and digital security.

Instead of verifying credentials once, organizations can verify identity at every access point—from the front door to the workstation.

It all comes back to a simple process: capture, extraction, encoding, storage and matching—turning the human body into one of the most powerful credentials in modern security.

The question isn’t whether this technology exists—it’s how we choose to use it.

-By Doug OGorden

CUTTING THROUGH THE NOISE

If you manage perimeter security for any kind of facility, you already know the problem: too many alarms and too many late-night notifications that turn out to be a stray animal, a gust of wind, or a shadow that tripped a motion detector. The noise is more than just annoying; it’s potentially dangerous. Because somewhere buried in all that clutter might be a real threat, and the more false alarms your team chases, the less attention they have left for the ones that matter.

This is the reality facing security professionals across nearly every sector, from logistics hubs and data centers to government campuses and critical infrastructure. And it’s driving a fundamental shift toward unified management, an approach that brings video, sensors, access control, and analytics together under a single platform so security teams can see, understand, and act on what’s happening across their entire perimeter – from one place. The old model of stacking disconnected sensors and hoping someone catches the right alert is giving way to integrated systems built on open platform video technology, smart analytics, and AI-powered tools that don’t just detect activity but help teams respond to it.

For data centers and communications facilities, the perimeter is no longer a passive boundary—it is the first measurable control in the uptime chain. And increasingly, it is a metric the board understands.

Physical and digital perimeters now operate as a unified line of defense. When perimeter protection fails, business continuity is rarely far behind.

Breaking Down the Silos

For years, perimeter security operated in disconnected layers. Video systems lived in one world. Access control lived in another. Alarm panels, intercoms, license plate readers, and environmental sensors all generated data, but rarely talked to each other. Security teams toggled between multiple interfaces, piecing together information while trying to make real-time decisions. It was like trying to conduct an orchestra when every musician is playing from a different sheet of music.

Unified management changes that equation. At its core, the concept is straightforward: rather than running separate systems that each handle one piece of the security puzzle, a unified approach connects them through an open platform video management system that serves as the central hub. Cameras, sensors, access control devices, and analytics all feed into a single operational view, giving operators the full picture instead of fragments. Open platform architecture means these systems are hardware agnostic, so organizations aren’t forced to rip out existing investments in cameras or infrastructure to get there. The VMS connects to what’s already in place and layers intelligence on top.

This matters because perimeter environments are rarely static. A distribution center might add a new loading dock. A campus might expand its parking areas. A government facility might need to temporarily increase monitoring around a sensitive building. The flexibility of a unified, open platform means security teams can scale and adapt without rebuilding from scratch every time conditions change.

That same openness also simplifies how organizations share information. Internal departments, from operations to risk management, can access relevant video data and reports through the same platform. And when an incident requires coordination with law enforcement or first responders, open systems make it straightforward to securely and quickly export and share critical evidence without format conflicts or proprietary barriers.

From Detection to Prevention

The security industry has talked about “proactive” for a long time, but we’re only now reaching the point where the technology genuinely delivers on that promise. The Security Industry Association’s 2026 Megatrends report identifies this evolution as one of the defining trends in the industry, noting that AI is enabling a historic shift from detection and response toward actual prevention. The report also highlights the growing unification of the security experience layer, where platforms for access control, video, and intrusion detection converge into a single architecture that surfaces actionable insights rather than raw data.

In practical terms, what does this look like for perimeter security? Consider a unified VMS with integrated AI-powered video analytics monitoring a warehouse perimeter. Traditional motion detection would alert on anything that moves, leaving operators to sort through dozens of irrelevant notifications. An AI-driven system, by contrast, can distinguish between a person and an animal, between a vehicle approaching a restricted gate and a delivery truck following its normal route. It can flag a specific behavior, like someone loitering near a fence line or a vehicle circling a facility and push that alert not just to a control room monitor but to specific team members on mobile devices, along with the relevant video feed and contextual information.

This kind of intelligent filtering changes the math for security operations. Instead of watching walls of monitors and hoping to spot something, operators are freed to focus on verified, prioritized events. The SIA Megatrends report frames it well: AI-driven platforms are increasingly replacing the labor-intensive task of monitoring video feeds and ranking alarms, which allows security personnel to transition from reactive notification watchers to proactive risk analysts.

Smarter Tools, Faster Responses

The applications extend well beyond simple intrusion detection. Line-crossing alerts can notify teams instantly when someone enters a restricted zone, whether that’s a fenced perimeter, a rooftop, or a secure loading area. Tailgating detection at access-controlled entry points flags when a single badge scan lets two people through a door. Appearance-matching tools can help security teams track a person of interest across multiple cameras in seconds rather than hours. License plate recognition at entry points adds yet another layer of awareness, automatically cross-referencing vehicles against watchlists or flagging unauthorized traffic.

Under a unified management approach, all of this data feeds into a single operational picture rather than being scattered across separate applications. When an alert fires, the video, sensor data, access log, and map location appear together in a single interface, enabling faster decisions and more coordinated responses. That’s the practical payoff of unification: not just more data, but better context at the moment it matters most.

For organizations managing multiple sites, cloud connectivity adds another dimension. Hybrid deployments, combining on-premises processing for real-time operations with cloud storage and remote access, give security leaders the ability to monitor and manage dispersed facilities from a central location. Smaller operations can take advantage of cloud-native VMS options that provide advanced analytics and AI-powered search without the overhead of maintaining local server infrastructure. Either way, the cost model becomes more flexible, and the barrier to adopting unified management drops considerably.

Built to Evolve

This flexibility also speaks to one of the most critical and often underappreciated benefits of open platform architecture: protecting existing investments. Some VMS providers are moving toward closed ecosystems that require specific hardware from specific manufacturers. For organizations that have already invested in cameras, sensors, and networking infrastructure across a perimeter, being told they need to start over isn’t just frustrating; it can be a budget killer. Open systems take the opposite approach, integrating with a wide range of devices and third-party technologies through APIs and software development kits, so security teams can adopt new capabilities incrementally rather than all at once.

That incremental approach is becoming critical as the pace of innovation accelerates. Edge devices are getting smarter, with manufacturers embedding AI-lite analytics directly into cameras and sensors. Drone detection, thermal imaging, and autonomous patrol technologies are maturing rapidly. Digital evidence management is evolving to give organizations secure, license-free ways to store, share, and manage case-related video without proprietary lock-in. Each of these capabilities adds value, but only if the underlying management platform can bring them together into a coherent system of systems.

The security industry’s trajectory is clear. Data is becoming the most valuable asset in any security operation, and unified management platforms are the tools that transform raw data into intelligence. For perimeter security professionals, the opportunity is to move beyond the noise, beyond the false alarms and the disconnected systems, and toward a unified approach that’s smarter, more integrated, and built to evolve. The organizations that embrace unified, open platform management today won’t just be better protected. They’ll be better positioned for whatever comes next.

-By Sam Phillips, Public Safety Lead, Milestone Systems

All power is not created equal, especially when designing and installing electrified access control (EAC) hardware and systems in new or retrofit applications.

Power supply requirements for electrified access control (EAC) hardware differ significantly from other devices and fire and life safety systems—one size does not fit all.

Unlike camera system power requirements, access control systems draw more current for locking hardware and during access control-related events. As the industry transitions from solenoid-based electric locking devices to motorized devices, demand for specific power supply requirements has also increased.

Types of Power Supplies

Switching Power Supplies

Switching Power Supplies are typically designed for use with resistive or capacitive loads such as low voltage lamps, alarm panels, cameras and signaling devices. They are lighter in weight, efficient (less heat generated) and are cheaper to manufacture. The low cost of switching power supplies often leads to their misapplication.

Switching power supplies are not recommended for use with access controls and electric locks for several reasons. Typical switching power supplies have trouble handling the inductive loads produced by locking devices with coils or solenoids due to the limited current reserve available to handle periods of high inrush. Excessive current draw (even for a short period of time) will briefly stop a switching supply from operating and may even permanently damage it.

Another byproduct of the switching power supply is a high frequency noise component that appears in the DC voltage output. A properly designed supply includes a filter circuit to reduce or eliminate this noise. Many switching power supplies do not include more effective output filtering due to cost constraints. The filter part of the supply can cost as much as the regulator circuit so a good high frequency filter is often left out. Although the noise will not harm a simple device like an electric strike, the noise may cause erratic operation of electronic equipment such as access controls, electronically controlled locks, panic bars and door controllers, causing them to malfunction and may even damage these units.

These “low cost” switching supplies often require that you supply your own power transformer and assemble these two components in your own box. The result will be a NON-UL-listed power supply, giving local inspectors the opportunity not to approve an installation.

Linear Power Supplies

Linear Power Supplies have been used for years for powering resistive, capacitive and inductive loads (devices with coils or solenoids, such as electromechanical and electromagnetic locks and strikes) due to their ability to handle large inrush currents. Since most of the DC filtering is done with large filter capacitors, there is ample reserve power to provide extra current for short periods of time without malfunction or damage. The output is also free of high frequency noise found in switching power supplies.  making them practical for access control applications.

However, the tradeoff is heat generated by the regulator due to moderate efficiency. The heat generated can lead to early failure of the temperature sensitive components housed near the supply board.

Hybrid Power Supplies

Hybrid Access Control Power Supplies are ideal for powering resistive, capacitive and inductive loads—the type of unique power loads common to access control locking devices. Hybrid power supplies combine the efficiency (low heat generation) of a switching supply and the rugged inductive load capability of a linear power supply.

This can be accomplished by adding extra filtering to the output stage of the power supply to provide clean, noise-free power for access controls with enough current reserve to reliably power inductive loads. Built-in inductive kickback protection helps manage high inrush protection caused by electric lock solenoids and motors. This type of hybrid power supply is a good overall choice for powering all access control system components.

Preventing Power Issues in Access Control Systems

EAC Power Issues

Based on more than 50 years of manufacturing electronic access and egress control solutions, including locking hardware and power supplies, SDC has found that  75-85% of access control operating problems and technical support calls are due to power issues*, resulting in:

• Dead Systems
• Malfunctioning locks or intermittent operation of accessories, controllers
• Locking devices that won’t respond reliably

Why? Because EAC power requirements differ from systems like CCTV. These issues can be eliminated by following best practices for power design and installation protocols specific to electrified access control hardware, including:

• Access control systems require steady low-voltage DC power
• Access control systems generally draw higher current during access control-related events involving readers, shunt and strike relays, door locking devices, gate operators, controllers and annunciators

Plan Now to Avoid Trouble Later

Before selecting a power supply, we recommend you plan now to avoid trouble later. This means you should carefully evaluate your project to avoid common installation and operating problems.

Low Voltage Power

With few exceptions, access control power concerns low-voltage, 12 or 24-volt DC power for most access control systems. Unlike security camera/video systems typically deployed throughout a facility, access control locking hardware draws more current, especially during an access control event – such as the locking or unlocking of a device. Providing steady, low-voltage DC current requires a power supply to convert incoming AC voltage to DC.

Calculating Current Load

Before selecting power supplies for your access control system, you must calculate the power load (current) required for each door opening. Use a Door Checklist like this example to fill in values and calculate the current load:

• Locking Device__________ Amps
• Rex Button__________ Amps
• Control Panel__________ Amps
• In/Out Readers__________ Amps
• Annunciator__________ Amps
• Total:__________ Amps

Next, add a 30% safety margin. Combine these values for an overall system total, as well as subtotals per floor or building. This will help you to:

• Determine what size power supply is needed.
• Select and locate the appropriate power supply components.
• Determine wire gauge requirements based on load, cable distance and voltage drop.

Voltage Drop

Power supply voltage will drop over long cable distances due to wire resistance. Operating access control devices with inadequate or excess voltage makes them run hotter, wear out faster, operate erratically or not at all. A good rule of thumb for access control devices is that voltage drop cannot exceed 5% of the supply voltage. There are many free voltage drop calculators available on the internet to obtain a voltage drop calculation by simply entering the wire gauge, voltage, distance and load current (Amps).

Centralized Power

Before proceeding, you’ll need to consider what type of power system—centralized or distributed—is best for your installation, as it will greatly affect your voltage drop calculations. If your project involves multiple doors, there are pros and cons to using one large, centralized power supply to meet the system requirements. The pros and cons of centralized power deployment are:

The point can be made that it is also easier to service everything at the point of failure in a distributed power system.

Dual Voltage Output

Dual Voltage Output is frequently required when powering access control panels at 12VDC and door locking devices at 24VDC. Look for 12/24VDC linear power supplies with various current output capabilities and/or add-in 12VDC regulator modules to supply power to access controllers, readers, or other devices.

What Else to Look For In a Power Supply

Much of the selection criteria for a power supply depends on your specific project application. However, there are some features worth recommending:

• Field selectable 12 or 24VDC, regulated and filtered
• Auto-resetting output circuit protection
• Backup battery with isolated battery charger
• Low battery disconnect
• Emergency release input (also the fire alarm input)
• Input, output and battery status LEDs

Electrified hardware today is highly reliable. Unless it’s improperly installed or damaged, it will typically perform for years. But without proper attention to power and power supply design, failures are only a matter of time.

Build the Knowledge to Stay Ahead of the Game

Avoiding costly callbacks and protecting your reputation matters. Maintaining fundamental knowledge of access control power is key. There is always something new to learn, or a special tip to apply that will make all the difference on your next door opening project. We’ve learned that with basic access control power skills, you can immediately address possible conflicts between what was designed versus what was installed, repaired or upgraded for most access control projects.

Selecting the right power supply is one component of avoiding access control power problems. You should also be comfortable with basic electricity concepts. Many people with years of industry experience have never had any formal electrical training. With the increasing use of more sophisticated electronic systems and circuitry, as well as increasing utility reliability issues from our aging power grid, it is important that you have a strong foundation to avoid creating issues down the road.

Remember, manufacturers and industry associations like ALOA, DHI, and ESA have a wealth of information, tools and training to assist you in your electrified door hardware and access control projects.

Construction companies are not strangers to risk. Weather delays, labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions are part of the business. What has changed—and is now hitting margins with increasing force—is crime. Not petty theft, but a steady, organized, and often repeatable pattern of intrusion that is costing the industry billions each year.

What was once written off as jobsite shrinkage has evolved into a structured criminal activity targeting construction as a soft, predictable opportunity.

What Thieves Are Targeting—and Why

The range of stolen assets reflects both market demand and ease of access. Heavy equipment such as skid steers, mini excavators, and loaders remain prime targets due to their high resale value and mobility. According to the National Equipment Register, compact equipment is particularly vulnerable because it can be transported quickly and often lacks robust tracking.

At the same time, copper wiring and electrical infrastructure have become the most aggressively targeted materials. Thieves frequently strip sites overnight, cutting and removing wiring in ways that cause extensive collateral damage. The U.S. Department of Energy has noted that copper theft often results in service disruptions and safety hazards, amplifying costs far beyond the value of the stolen metal.

Smaller but more frequent losses come from tools, materials, and fuel. Insurance providers such as Great American Insurance Group report that tools and handheld equipment are among the most commonly stolen items. These incidents often fall below insurance deductibles, meaning contractors absorb the losses directly. Building materials like lumber and steel are also increasingly targeted, particularly during periods of high demand or constrained supply. Diesel fuel theft has quietly grown as well, driven by ease of access and immediate resale value.

The pattern is clear: anything that can be removed quickly and converted into cash is at risk.

The Rise of Organized Construction Crime

Perhaps the most important shift in recent years is the growing role of organized crime.

Law enforcement agencies and the National Insurance Crime Bureau increasingly point to coordinated crews rather than opportunistic individuals. These groups operate with planning and precision. They scout sites during working hours, identify high-value targets, and return after hours equipped with trailers and tools to execute theft efficiently.

The timing is consistent. Most incidents occur overnight or on weekends when sites are unoccupied. In many cases, there is little evidence of forced entry, suggesting familiarity with site layouts and access points. Some sites are hit multiple times, indicating that once a vulnerability is identified, it is exploited repeatedly.

Construction sites, in effect, have become predictable supply points in a broader criminal logistics chain.

The Real Cost: Beyond What’s Stolen

The financial impact of construction crime extends well beyond the value of stolen assets.

According to loss control guidance from Great American Insurance Group, the true cost of theft can reach two to three times the initial loss when factoring in project delays, labor disruptions, reordering materials, and potential contractual penalties. Industry estimates suggest that theft can add between one and five percent to total project costs, a significant erosion of already tight margins.

Compounding the issue, many losses fall within insurance deductibles or result in higher premiums after claims are filed. The financial burden, in many cases, sits squarely with the contractors.

Law Enforcement and Policy Response

Law enforcement agencies have taken steps to address construction-related crime, but the response remains uneven.

The National Insurance Crime Bureau emphasizes the importance of rapid reporting and accurate equipment identification, noting that delays significantly reduce the likelihood of recovery. However, inconsistent use of serial number tracking and asset registration continues to limit effectiveness.

Copper theft has prompted more aggressive legislative action in some jurisdictions, including felony classifications and stricter oversight of scrap metal recyclers. Even so, enforcement varies widely, and resale markets remain a critical vulnerability in the system.

The reality is that law enforcement is often reacting to crime that is already well-organized and financially motivated.

The Security Gap: Temporary Sites, Persistent Risk

At the core of the issue is a structural challenge. Construction sites are temporary by nature, but the risks they face are constant.

They are frequently left unattended overnight, protected by minimal perimeter controls, and managed by a mix of general contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers with varying levels of accountability for security. This fragmentation creates gaps that are easily identified and exploited.

From a criminal perspective, the equation is straightforward: high-value assets, low barriers to entry, and limited risk of detection.

A Shift Toward Active Perimeter Security

Leading construction firms are beginning to rethink this model.

Rather than treating security as an afterthought, they are adopting a more proactive, layered approach. Mobile surveillance systems are being deployed to provide real-time visibility, often powered by solar units that can be rapidly installed on remote sites. Access control measures are being introduced on larger projects to better manage who enters and exits the site, reducing both external and insider threats.

GPS tracking and telematics are gaining traction for heavy equipment, enabling geofencing and rapid response if assets are moved without authorization. Physical security measures are also being upgraded, with improved fencing, secured storage containers, and lighting designed specifically for deterrence.

Insurance providers are increasingly encouraging, and in some cases require these measures as part of risk mitigation strategies.

The Bottom Line

Construction crime is no longer a secondary concern. It is a predictable, measurable, and increasingly organized threat that directly impacts project costs and timelines.

Data from the National Equipment Register, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, the U.S. Department of Energy, and major insurers all point to the same conclusion: losses are significant, recovery is limited, and prevention remains inconsistent.

The reality is that criminals have adapted faster than the industry. Until construction companies address perimeter security as a core operational function—designed into the project from the outset rather than added as a reactive measure—the imbalance will drive losses higher.