Protecting vehicles throughout the logistics chain requires more than securing the property. It requires knowing who is authorized to move each vehicle, when and why.

At a North Carolina automobile dealership, thieves stole 12 vehicles in a single operation. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the theft was allegedly part of a multistate criminal enterprise targeting luxury cars, trucks and SUVs across the Southeast. Federal prosecutors allege the defendants used key-fob programming devices and coordinated with other individuals who drove the stolen vehicles away.

The incident illustrates a fundamental challenge for automobile loss prevention. A vehicle is not simply merchandise sitting in a warehouse.  It is a high-value asset that can be driven off the property, particularly when its keys are readily accessible.

That characteristic becomes particularly important as vehicles move from manufacturers through rail yards, ports, processing centers, intermodal facilities and dealerships.

At each location, employees, contractors and transport drivers must be able to move vehicles efficiently. Cars are unloaded, inspected, staged, repositioned and released for transportation. Depending on the facility and operating procedure, keys may remain with vehicles or be readily accessible to authorized personnel.

The operational requirement is legitimate. So is the security exposure.

The challenge is not simply preventing unauthorized people from entering a facility. It is preventing unauthorized vehicles from leaving one.

A Moving Inventory Creates a Different Perimeter

Traditional perimeter security establishes a boundary around a property. Fences, gates, intrusion detection, video surveillance and access control help identify and prevent unauthorized entry.

Automobile logistics introduces another dimension: thousands of valuable assets may cross that boundary during normal operations.

Consider a rail-served vehicle distribution center.

New automobiles arrive on specialized railcars and are unloaded onto staging areas. Personnel inspect vehicles, move them into designated inventory locations and prepare them for transportation by truck. Transport drivers arrive to collect assigned vehicles and deliver them to dealerships or other destinations.

The entire operation depends on movement.

A facility cannot simply lock every vehicle in place or eliminate access to its inventory without disrupting operations. Even controlling keys presents logistical challenges when hundreds of vehicles must be handled within tightly scheduled transportation windows.

The security problem therefore extends beyond the physical perimeter.

A person may have legitimate authorization to enter the property but no authority to move a particular vehicle. A transport driver may be authorized to collect five vehicles but not a sixth. A vehicle may be properly released from one custody point but incorrectly received at another.

These are operational vulnerabilities as much as physical-security vulnerabilities.

The FBI identifies rail yards, intermodal containers and auto racks carrying new vehicles as potential targets for cargo theft. It distinguishes straightforward theft from more sophisticated strategic theft targeting high-value shipments.

That distinction matters because the criminal objective is not always to defeat a fence or force open a gate. Sometimes it is to make an unauthorized movement appear legitimate.

Organized Theft Exploits the Process

Automobile theft has become a recurring target of organized criminal activity, although the methods vary considerably.

In a separate federal case announced in 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that a multistate theft ring had stolen more than 100 high-end vehicles from dealerships across the United States. The operation involved coordinated theft and interstate movement of stolen vehicles.

Other schemes rely less on physical intrusion and more on deception.

Federal investigators have documented criminals using fabricated driver’s licenses, stolen identities and fraudulent transactions to obtain vehicles from dealerships, rental companies and other businesses. In one Pennsylvania case, the U.S. Department of Justice notes that defendants stole at least 46 vehicles through fraudulent purchases, rentals and test drives.

Cargo theft investigations reveal another method. Criminals impersonate legitimate carriers, use fraudulent pickup information or compromise business accounts to divert valuable shipments. The FBI classifies these methods as strategic cargo theft.

Not all these techniques have been documented specifically at automobile rail terminals. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the different ways criminals can exploit legitimate transportation and custody processes.

They also explain why insider risk deserves attention.

A criminal who knows when vehicles arrive, where they are staged, which gates are used and how releases are authorized may have an advantage over someone attempting an opportunistic theft.

That information could come from observation, compromised systems, fraudulent credentials or someone with legitimate access. Insider bribery and collusion are possible threats, but should not be assumed without evidence in a particular incident.

For security management, the practical question is the same: How does the organization distinguish an authorized movement from one that merely looks authorized?

Securing the Movement, Not Just the Property

The solution begins by connecting three things that are too often managed separately: physical security, operational authorization and vehicle custody.

The physical perimeter remains the first protective layer.

Fencing, intrusion detection, lighting and video surveillance help protect designated entry and exit points. Properly designed systems can detect attempted intrusions before criminals reach valuable inventory and provide security personnel with information needed to assess and respond.

But once someone is inside an automobile-processing facility, another form of control becomes essential.

Every vehicle movement should have a legitimate business purpose supported by an identifiable person, assignment and destination.

At a release gate, for example, an authorized transport driver should be connected to a verified carrier, pickup assignment and specific vehicle identification numbers. The actual vehicles leaving the facility should match that authorization.

Access-control records, license plate recognition, video evidence and vehicle-management information can support that process. Where systems are integrated, discrepancies can become actionable exceptions rather than facts discovered during a later inventory reconciliation.

A vehicle moving toward an exit without a corresponding release authorization is a different security event from an approved shipment.

So is a driver attempting to collect vehicles outside the assigned load.

Technology can help establish those distinctions, but only when operating procedures define what constitutes an authorized movement and who has authority to approve exceptions.

A gate that opens for an authorized driver does not necessarily establish that every vehicle leaving through it is authorized.

That is the gap automobile loss prevention must close.

Layered Security Changes the Outcome

The value of coordinated perimeter protection becomes clearer when examining facilities that have experienced repeated theft. At the Automotive Logistics and Supply Chain Global (ALSC) Global 2026, that was part of a broader discussion between Keith Schoffstall of AMAROK and Danny Ramon of Overhaul about assessing risk and preventing losses across the supply chain.

Also at the conference, Keith Schoffstall, national account director at AMAROK, described a customer that had experienced the theft of dozens of vehicles over a relatively short period. Following implementation of layered perimeter security, the facility has experienced no further thefts or attempted break-ins in more than two years.

While no single security measure can eliminate every threat, this example illustrates the value of assessing site-specific vulnerabilities and using layered protection to deter and interrupt theft before a loss occurs.

AMAROK has also documented railroad and auto-ramp security programs where repeated theft and vandalism affected operations. Its published case material describes criminals targeting valuable vehicle components, including wheels, batteries and catalytic converters, as well as entire automobiles. One rail operator estimated cumulative theft-related losses exceeding $11 million.

These examples reinforce an important distinction.

The objective of perimeter protection is not merely to record a theft or identify the vehicle after it disappears. It is to create opportunities to detect, deter and interrupt criminal activity before the loss occurs.

For a large vehicle-storage facility, that may mean detecting someone approaching a restricted section of the property, verifying the activity through video, and initiating a response before the individual reaches the inventory.

At an exit, it means establishing that the person, carrier, vehicle and movement authorization agree.

Across the facility, it means recognizing when normal operating activity has become a security exception.

Physical deterrence, intelligent detection, controlled movement and coordinated response become parts of one operating process.

The precise technology mix will vary with the facility. A dealership with dozens of vehicles faces different operating conditions from a port or rail terminal managing thousands.

The governing principle, however, is consistent: security must protect both the boundary and the authorized movement of assets through it.

The Handoff Is Part of the Perimeter

Automobiles rarely remain under one organization’s control throughout the distribution process.

Manufacturers, railroads, terminal operators, vehicle processors, trucking companies and dealerships may each assume custody at different stages.

Every transfer introduces another opportunity for a discrepancy.

A vehicle can be accounted for when it leaves a rail terminal but missing when the receiving facility conducts its inventory. Damage or theft may be discovered well after the event, complicating investigations and responsibility for the loss.

This makes documentation and accountability essential elements of security.

Vehicle identification, release authorization, transport assignment, departure records and receipt confirmation help establish where custody changed and who was responsible.

Video and access-control records can add independent evidence of physical movements.

The value is not limited to investigating losses. Reliable custody information can help identify exceptions sooner, reduce disputes and improve confidence in the logistics process.

It also changes how security performance should be evaluated.

Counting perimeter alarms or reviewing camera uptime tells only part of the story. A more useful assessment examines whether unauthorized movements were detected, whether release discrepancies were resolved, and how quickly security personnel could intervene when an exception occurred.

The measure is not simply whether the perimeter was breached.

It is whether the vehicle remained protected throughout the movement and custody process.

From Property Protection to Loss Prevention

The automobile industry depends on moving large inventories efficiently through an extensive network of facilities, carriers and custody points.

That operating model cannot eliminate movement, nor should security become an obstacle to legitimate business activity.

Instead, effective automobile loss prevention must distinguish legitimate movement from criminal activity without disrupting the flow of vehicles.

Physical barriers and detection technologies protect against unauthorized entry. Identity and access controls establish who is permitted on the property. Operational procedures define who may move a vehicle. Video, vehicle identification and release records help confirm that an authorized movement is actually occurring. Trained personnel and response procedures turn exceptions into action.

None of those measures is sufficient alone.

Together, they create a more accountable process for protecting high-value inventory.

The perimeter is no longer just the fence surrounding the vehicles. It includes the controls that determine when, where, how and by whom those vehicles can move.

When the keys are in the car, that distinction can determine whether a vehicle reaches its intended destination—or disappears from the supply chain.

By Keith Schoffstall, National Account Director, AMAROK Security

Why multifamily properties must prioritize gate safety alongside perimeter security

Gates are designed to keep threats out, but what happens when the gates themselves become a threat?

From pedestrian entrances to vehicular access points, gates are among the most critical—and potentially dangerous—components of a multifamily property’s perimeter security system. As automation and access control technologies become more sophisticated, so do the gates protecting multifamily properties. Yet improper installation, misuse, or a lack of awareness of their hazards can turn these moving systems into serious safety risks.

The dangers are far from theoretical. In a 2025 New York appellate case, a woman alleged that a swinging metal gate at an apartment complex struck her ankle, resulting in a personal injury lawsuit. In another residential case, a January 2026 court decision addressed an incident in which a metal locking mechanism detached from a courtyard gate and struck a resident in the head. Both cases illustrate how ordinary gates and their components can become hazards, reinforcing the importance of proper installation, maintenance and awareness of potential risks.

Other incidents have had fatal consequences. In 2019, seven-year-old Alex Quanbeck died when a schoolyard gate detached from its supporting hardware and collapsed on him. In 2020, Esther “Essie” Nakajjigo was killed when an unsecured gate at Arches National Park was blown into her vehicle. Both tragedies underscore the potentially devastating consequences of improperly secured gates.

These incidents underscore why gate safety standards are so important—and why they continue to evolve as the industry identifies new risks and vulnerabilities. ASTM F2200 and UL 325, which address automated vehicular gate safety, have undergone multiple revisions, with requirements incorporated into the International Building Code (IBC). More recently, ASTM updated F2200 in 2024, followed by revisions to UL 325 in 2025. In May 2026, the International Code Council (ICC) approved additional gate safety provisions for inclusion in the 2027 International Codes, expanding protections for manual and automated gates. These requirements will become enforceable as jurisdictions adopt the applicable codes.

While automated gates present significant risks, manual gates and their components can be equally hazardous. This has prompted organizations such as Ready Set Safe to advocate for broader safety requirements covering everyday fence and gate installations.

Understanding Gate Safety Standards

Gate Safety: From Installation to Ongoing Maintenance

Federal lawmakers have also introduced the bipartisan Alex Gate Safety Act, sponsored by U.S. Senators John Curtis (R-UT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). The legislation would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to establish safety standards for vehicular and large gates, authorize modifications to those standards to further reduce injury risks, and launch a national public awareness campaign about gate hazards.

Separate state-level proposals have also addressed specific gate safety requirements. For example, an earlier version of California’s AB 2149 proposed safety measures for gates weighing more than 50 pounds and exceeding 48 inches in width or 84 inches in height, including:

1. Preventing gates from falling more than 45 degrees from vertical if detached from their supporting hardware.
2. Ensuring gates are balanced and secured against movement caused by gravity or other natural forces.
3. Covering rolling wheels and other moving components.
4. Installing positive stops to prevent gates from traveling beyond their intended limits.

Although the California bill was not enacted, it also proposed responsibilities for property owners, including maintaining gates in safe operating condition, arranging periodic professional inspections, retaining written certifications and completing necessary repairs.

Gate safety isn’t just about proper installation. It’s about maintaining that safety throughout the gate’s service life.

Designing for Both Safety and Security

When securing a multifamily property with fencing and gates, it’s essential to understand the safety requirements involved. Simple measures, such as reducing protrusions, installing anti-drop mechanisms to prevent large gates from falling, and posting warning signs, can help prevent serious injuries.

While safety and security often go hand in hand, they serve two distinct purposes. A comprehensive perimeter security plan must address both protecting the property from unauthorized access and protecting residents and visitors from potential hazards.

Ultimately, protecting human life is the highest priority. But a proactive approach to gate safety can also help reduce liability, avoid costly litigation, and potentially lower insurance premiums.

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

Security services for data centers and other IT centers are changing daily, but one thing hasn’t: large perimeters and campus edges remain consistently vulnerable. Traditional security combines fixed cameras, sensors, and ground patrols, leaving blind spots and coverage gaps. In an environment where quick response times are essential, and breaches can lead to disruptions, relying on ground security alone to react is no longer sufficient.

To secure these sites effectively, the industry is shifting toward a blended security approach that integrates radar perimeter detection with automated drone response and ground patrols.

The Missing Security Conversation

Most data center managers and security employees have heard countless sales pitches for dock-based autonomous drones or high-def perimeter cameras. Rarely, however, are they offered a complete product that connects perimeter radar detection directly to automated security drone responses.

Cameras can only cover a fixed area, and ground patrols take time to cross large campuses, but radar detection provides continuous, 360-degree coverage across the entire perimeter of facilities. However, detection alone is only half the battle. The game-changer happens when radar detection seamlessly triggers an automated drone dispatch. The whole process works better when it is fully integrated.

How Radar-Integrated Automated Drone Response Works

Detection: A smart fence line with radar detects an anomaly at the edge of the data center campus or laydown yard.

Verification: The radar signal alerts remote pilots operating in a 24/7 Security Operations Center.

Instant Aerial Dispatch: The operations center verifies the breach and instantly dispatches a drone.

On-Scene Presence: The aircraft arrives over the intrusion point in seconds and provides live aerial video feed, thermal tracking, and situational awareness before dispatching a ground response.

This process transforms drone technology from a passive monitoring tool into an active force multiplier.

Reducing False Alarms: Precision vs. Guesswork

For facility managers, one of the biggest challenges in perimeter security is overusing resources due to false alarms. In a traditional setup, unverified camera detections require a guard to potentially cross a facility campus to investigate. This possible “false alarm” cycle drains guard resources and leaves other core security needs temporarily unattended.

Integrating radar perimeter detection directly with automated drone response eliminates this operational bottleneck. When a genuine anomaly meets the threshold for closer assessment, an automated drone launches instantly to reach the exact location of the potential incident.

Instead of sending human guards into unknown situations, remote pilots with advanced security training verify the scene using AI-detection, thermal imaging, and high-definition video feeds.  By combining radar detection with drone dispatches, the SOC keeps a human in the loop and dispatches ground personnel only when a real, verified threat requires a guard presence.

Why Data Centers and IT Infrastructure Need This Now

Data center campuses are expanding into larger, more remote locations. These sprawling layouts make the traditional perimeter-patrol model costly and slow to respond.

Alternatively, a drone can hover over an intruder within seconds, using spotlight or loudspeaker capabilities to deter potential threats. In this model, remote pilots in a centralized 24/7 operations center can oversee multiple sites, giving data center operators increased oversight without increased costs.

Better technology, trained personnel and coordinated response procedures are helping organizations reduce uncertainty about who is safe—and who still needs assistance.

When an emergency occurs, three questions quickly become paramount: How many people were there? How many were injured? And how many remain unaccounted for?

For many organizations, the last question is surprisingly difficult to answer.

An employee badges into an office but leaves without presenting a credential. A student is marked present at school but moves to another building. A hotel guest enters a room using an electronic key, then leaves the property without any corresponding exit record.

When an incident occurs, security teams may know who was expected to be present without knowing who was actually there—or who has reached safety.

Emergency notification technologies can deliver instructions to thousands of people in seconds. The greater challenge is determining who followed those instructions, confirming their safety and identifying those who still need assistance.

Reducing that uncertainty is becoming one of the most important opportunities in emergency notification.

Why Access Control Alone Can’t Ensure Occupant Accountability

Access-control systems provide a useful starting point. They record credential activity, identify authorized occupants and establish when individuals entered controlled areas.

However, most commercial buildings do not require employees to badge out. During an evacuation, emergency exits permit occupants to leave without presenting credentials. Visitor management and employee scheduling systems add information, but neither establishes actual occupancy.

Hotels face an even more complicated problem. Guest registration identifies room assignments, while electronic locks record certain door activity. Neither establishes whether a guest remains inside a room or has left the property.

Following the fatal 2017 Cameron House hotel fire in Scotland, a government working group examined evacuation and guest-accountability procedures. Its 2023 report recommended maintaining accessible guest information, assigning staff responsibility for specific building zones, establishing evacuation reporting procedures and providing accurate information to responding firefighters.

The report emphasized that accountability is an organizational responsibility, recognizing that guests may be in their rooms, elsewhere on the property or outside the hotel when an emergency occurs.

The challenge is not simply collecting more information. It is reconciling incomplete records quickly enough to support decisions.

How Emergency Notification Systems Improve Occupant Accountability

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provides a documented example of how technology can improve the process.

CMS developed an automated accountability system that combines access-control records, visitor management information and its AlertCMS emergency notification platform. The system identifies individuals who badged into an affected building during the preceding 24 hours and requests status information from them.

According to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s 2024 Occupant Emergency Programs Guide, CMS tested the system during an October 2023 fire drill. Notifications were distributed within six minutes of alarm activation, and occupants began responding within three minutes of receiving them.

Within 12 minutes of the original notification, CMS had accounted for approximately 80% of building occupants.

The improvement is significant because the system connects three previously separate activities: identifying potentially affected people, communicating instructions and collecting information about their status.

It also reduces the manual work required of security and emergency management personnel, allowing them to concentrate on unresolved cases and other response responsibilities.

Importantly, the 24-hour access-record window does not establish who was physically inside at the time of the alarm. It identifies a population requiring follow-up. Responses and additional accountability procedures help establish who is safe and whose status remains unknown.

Emergency Response and Duty of Care: It’s a Team Sport

Technology alone can’t ensure an effective emergency response. That requires trained personnel working together to execute the plan.

An evacuation instruction may direct employees to use a designated stairway and report to a specific assembly area. Employees must know the route and follow the instructions. Floor wardens may guide occupants, check assigned areas where safe, and report exceptions. Assembly leaders confirm arrivals, while security personnel reconcile those reports with access-control and notification records.

Facilities teams may have separate responsibilities for building systems, and first responders need reliable information about people who may require assistance.

These actions should be established through approved emergency plans and reinforced through training and exercises.

According to OSHA’s emergency action plan requirements, organizations must establish evacuation and employee-accountability procedures and train designated personnel who assist with evacuations.

The important distinction is between receiving a notification and completing an assigned action.

An employee acknowledging an alert has not necessarily evacuated. A smartphone reporting its location does not independently establish the person’s safety. Even an assembly-area check-in may require follow-up if the individual subsequently moves or needs assistance.

Effective accountability therefore requires a coordinated process that combines digital responses with direct confirmation by trained personnel.

Beyond Emergency Alerts: Building an Integrated Response System

The technologies needed to improve accountability already exist across many security environments. Access control, visitor management, emergency notification, mobile applications and digital mustering systems can contribute information to a common response process.

Integration allows an emergency team to develop an initial list of potentially affected occupants, distribute location-specific instructions and collect status updates. Digital check-ins or reports from assembly leaders can confirm arrivals, while unanswered requests and conflicting records identify cases requiring investigation.

Physical notification remains essential. Public-address systems, intercoms, visual displays and trained personnel reach people who may not have a registered mobile device, including visitors, contractors and others unfamiliar with the property.

Emergency response procedures must also remain effective when communications or electrical infrastructure is disrupted. Printed rosters, alternate communications and manual accountability procedures remain important components of emergency planning.

For security integrators, the opportunity extends beyond installing emergency notification platforms. The larger challenge is connecting access control, visitor management, building communications and incident management into a coordinated accountability process. That requires understanding how each system establishes presence, how information is reconciled during an emergency and how trained personnel confirm the status of occupants.

An effective integration must also support the organization’s emergency procedures. Notifications need to reach the appropriate population, assigned personnel must receive instructions they are trained to execute, and the system must capture responses and identify unresolved cases for escalation. Testing these workflows through realistic exercises provides a more meaningful measure of system performance than demonstrating that an alert reached a mobile phone or activated a loudspeaker.

Beyond Emergency Notification: Measuring Occupant Accountability

Emergency notification performance is frequently discussed in terms of message delivery speed and recipient acknowledgment. Occupant accountability introduces more consequential measurements: time to identify the potentially affected population, time to receive status reports, percentage of people accounted for and time required to resolve outstanding cases.

The CMS experience demonstrates that these outcomes can be measured and improved.

For security directors, the opportunity is to establish accountability as a measurable emergency response objective. For integrators, it is to design and validate the connections among security technologies, communication systems and the personnel responsible for executing emergency procedures.

The measure of success is not simply whether the integrated systems operate as specified. It is whether the organization can use them to determine who is safe, who remains unaccounted for and who still needs assistance.

An emergency notification system can establish that an alert was sent. An effective emergency response program must establish what happened next—and who still needs help.

Advances in weapons screening and AI video analytics are improving threat recognition, verification and response. The next measure of performance is how effectively these technologies turn detection into security outcomes.

Weapons and object detection technologies are advancing beyond identification. AI-enabled systems can screen large crowds for concealed weapons, verify visible firearms and help reconstruct the movements of unattended objects. The next frontier is connecting these capabilities with the information and procedures that turn detection into actionable intelligence.

The most consequential advances involve improving detection performance without overwhelming personnel with nuisance alarms, establishing the circumstances surrounding potential threats and reducing the time between recognition, verification and response.

Stadiums, transportation facilities and commercial properties are demonstrating how these capabilities can be matched to specific security requirements.

Stadiums Weapons Screening: Screening Performance Is an Operational Equation

At Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, Tepper Sports & Entertainment has used Evolv Express weapons screening since 2021. In May 2026, Evolv reported that the stadium had upgraded to its second-generation screening platform and added Evolv eXpedite bag screening at employee entrances.

The stadium achieved an average 93% clear rate across its first four years of deployment, according to Evolv’s operating data. Approximately seven of every 100 spectators generated an alert requiring further screening.

The 93% clear rate is an operational measure, not a weapons-detection accuracy rate. A complete performance assessment also examines detection sensitivity, nuisance alarms, secondary-inspection workload and the effectiveness of the overall screening process.

Beyond Throughput: Measuring Weapons Screening Performance

Xtract One Technologies is introducing another measure of screening performance that addresses an important limitation of conventional throughput reporting. Its Mean Time to Secure (MTTS) metric combines the time required for primary screening with the time needed to resolve alerts through secondary inspection. The capability is available across the company’s SmartGateway, Xtract One Gateway and Xtract One View platforms.

The distinction is significant. A screening system may process thousands of people per hour, yet individuals diverted for additional inspection can experience substantial delays. MTTS captures the time required to complete both screening stages, rather than measuring only how quickly people pass through the scanner.

Xtract One calculates the metric by combining Mean Time to Detect (MTTD), the primary screening interval, with Mean Time to Resolve (MTTR), the time required to clear an alert. Its measurement begins when an individual enters the gateway’s sensor range and ends when the individual has completed any required secondary screening. It does not necessarily include time spent waiting in the entrance queue before reaching the scanner.

For security directors, the information provides a more complete basis for evaluating operations. High primary-screening speed can be offset by excessive secondary inspections, inadequate staffing or inefficient resolution procedures. Measuring both stages helps identify where delays occur and whether adjustments to detection settings, staffing or inspection procedures would improve performance.

The company also introduced enhanced recording of secondary-screening outcomes, including verified weapons by type. Linking clearance time with inspection results allows operators to evaluate not only how quickly people are processed, but what the screening program is actually detecting.

This development changes the conversation about screening performance. The most useful metric is no longer simply how many people a system can process. It is how efficiently the entire screening operation clears people while maintaining the required level of detection.

Beyond the Claims: Validating Weapons Detection Performance

Evolv’s experience illustrates another important consideration: the need for substantiated performance claims. In 2024, the Federal Trade Commission challenged the company’s earlier marketing representations concerning weapons-detection accuracy, nuisance alarms and staffing benefits. The resulting settlement restricted unsupported claims and provided cancellation rights to certain school customers.

Of 65 eligible K–12 customers, 60 retained their agreements. Five canceled, representing 24 screening systems.

For stadium operators and other high-volume facilities, these developments reinforce the importance of evaluating screening technologies through documented operating results, validated detection performance and the effectiveness of the complete inspection process.

Video Gun Detection: From Recognition to Verified Intelligence

Video-based weapons detection is evolving from firearm recognition toward faster verification and coordinated response.

Research into contextual image analysis and relationships among objects within a scene is advancing approaches to recognizing small or partially obscured firearms and distinguishing them from similarly shaped objects.

Commercial platforms are differentiating themselves through their verification architectures.

ZeroEyes combines AI analysis of surveillance video with a continuously staffed verification center. When its software identifies a potential firearm, trained analysts review the imagery before issuing a verified alert. The company reports that notifications can reach security personnel and first responders within three to five seconds of detection, accompanied by information such as the weapon description and last known location. This architecture converts an AI classification into human-verified information without requiring onsite personnel to continuously monitor numerous camera streams.

Omnilert takes a complementary approach by integrating AI firearm detection with security-management and emergency response systems. Its integration with Genetec Security Center can associate detections with camera locations, present supporting video and initiate configured response actions following confirmation.

Those actions can include emergency notifications, alarms and access-control responses, depending on the organization’s systems and approved procedures.

The competitive distinction is increasingly how quickly a platform converts detection into verified intelligence and executes the appropriate response.

Video Gun Detection: A New Layer of Transit Security

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada provides an example of video gun detection within a larger security modernization program. RTC introduced ZeroEyes at transit facilities in 2024 and announced a deployment expansion exceeding 300% in October 2025.

The agency’s broader security investments include additional armed security personnel, enhanced command-center operations and GPS-enabled emergency notification for drivers. RTC reported reductions of 40% in passenger-on-passenger assaults and 26% in operator assaults during 2024.

Those results reflect the broader security program rather than a measured outcome attributable solely to gun-detection analytics.

RTC demonstrates how verified firearm detection can complement personnel, communications and existing security operations. The technology provides another source of information that can accelerate recognition and coordinated response across a distributed transit environment.

It is what happens to the information.

An aircraft searches a large maritime area. Sensors locate something that warrants attention. Crews assess what they are seeing. Information is communicated to command personnel and other responding units. Surveillance can continue while the appropriate surface assets move toward the target.

Technology allows that process to begin far beyond the physical border.

Unattended-Object Detection: Reconstructing What Happened

Unattended-object analytics is progressing beyond detecting items that remain stationary for a specified interval. More advanced applications seek to establish the relationship between an object, the person who introduced it and the sequence of events surrounding its placement.

Person-object association can connect a detected bag or package with an individual within a video sequence. Object tracking and forensic-search tools can help investigators determine when the item appeared, where it was placed and whether the associated person departed.

This introduces a more sophisticated investigative capability: reconstructing an object’s history rather than simply reporting its presence.

For commercial office buildings, video analytics can support different rules for reception areas, public corridors, loading docks and restricted entrances. Location, time and observed behavior provide information for determining when an object requires investigation.

Cross-camera investigation adds another dimension. Compatible video-management systems can help investigators retrieve footage from multiple cameras to reconstruct an individual’s movements before or after an object was left behind.

Maintaining object identity and person-object associations across cameras remains technically demanding, particularly when people overlap, objects are obscured or visual conditions change. The capabilities and limitations of each platform should therefore be evaluated through realistic testing.

The important development is the movement from isolated object alerts toward event reconstruction that gives security personnel a stronger basis for assessing potential threats.

Train Station Security: Turning Analytics Into Actionable Events

Avanti West Coast, a UK rail operator, worked with security integrator SECOM to evaluate AI video analytics at two railway stations. The trial used Eagle Eye Networks technology and five cameras at each location to address unattended baggage, passenger falls, overcrowding and unauthorized access to railway areas.

The system classified events and generated notifications that directed personnel toward relevant camera views. The objective was to improve recognition of events requiring intervention while using the existing video infrastructure more effectively.

The trial also exposed an important operational consideration: alert quality.

Avanti’s assessment identified the need to continue refining detection accuracy and reducing notifications that did not require action. For a busy station, an analytics system must distinguish meaningful security and safety events from routine passenger activity.

This has implications for system design and performance measurement. Object-detection accuracy is only one factor. The proportion of actionable alerts, the information provided for investigation and the time required to verify an event are equally important.

The Avanti project also demonstrates the value of using a common video-analytics infrastructure for several operational requirements. Unattended baggage, passenger falls and unauthorized access represent different event types, but all can be classified, prioritized and directed to the appropriate personnel.

For transportation operators, this approach can increase the usefulness of existing surveillance investments while improving the information available to security teams.

Beyond Detection Rates: Measuring Security Technology Performance

The industry is moving toward performance measurements that reflect the complete security process rather than isolated equipment capabilities.

Detection rates and primary screening throughput remain important, but secondary-inspection time, verified threat counts and resolution outcomes provide a stronger basis for evaluating operational effectiveness.

Xtract One’s Mean Time to Secure demonstrates this shift in weapons screening. The same principle applies to video analytics and object detection.

Video gun-detection systems can be evaluated through detection accuracy, verification time, information quality and response integration. Object analytics introduces additional measures: the accuracy of person-object association, continuity of tracking, relevance of alerts and speed of forensic investigation.

These metrics reflect different security requirements, but they share a common purpose: determining whether the technology improves the organization’s ability to recognize and respond to meaningful events.

Integration becomes important when those events must be interpreted alongside other information.

Screening alerts, video detections and object-tracking records can be combined with access-control activity, location information and other security data to support Knitting Situational Awareness (KSA).

For a security operations center, the opportunity is to receive verified events with sufficient context to make informed decisions and coordinate response.

The distinction is between generating more alarms and delivering better intelligence.

PART 1: The Perimeter Changed. Did Your Security Strategy?

Tuesday, November 10, 2026 | 1 p.m. ET

Is your security strategy keeping pace with the risks your organization faces today?

Join smartPerimeter.ai for the first installment of The Intelligent Perimeter, a three-part webinar series presented by publisher Mark McCourt. This opening session, The Perimeter Changed. Did Your Security Strategy? introduces a practical management framework for recognizing change, evaluating its impact, and adapting security strategy to support organizational resilience.

What You’ll Learn:

• Why the organizational perimeter extends beyond traditional physical boundaries—and how changing responsibilities introduce new security considerations.
• How internal and external changes can reshape the perimeter risk environment, even when physical boundaries remain unchanged.
• Why advances in detection, connected information, AI and automation are creating new opportunities to proactively address perimeter risks.
• How the Intelligent Perimeter management framework connects six essential activities: Recognize, Understand, Decide, Respond, Manage, and Measure + Adapt.

Designed for security and risk leaders, enterprise security managers, consultants, specifiers, integrators and technology professionals, this focused 20-minute presentation will be followed by an attendee discussion.

Don’t miss this opportunity to explore how a more comprehensive view of the perimeter can help your organization anticipate risks, strengthen security management and build greater operational resilience.

Register today for The Intelligent Perimeter Webinar Series.

PART 2: From Perimeter Risk to Earlier Understanding

Tuesday, January 12, 2027 | 1 p.m. ET

Turning Detection and Information Into a Credible Understanding of What Is Happening

More sensors, cameras, analytics and data do not automatically create better security.

The advantage comes from getting the right information connected, understood and placed in operating context soon enough to matter.

This webinar examines the information side of the Intelligent Perimeter—from the capabilities that produce trusted information through KSA and Shared Operational Understanding to the technologies that move the responsible human higher in the decision chain.

What You’ll Learn:

• How Physical Protection, Intelligent Detection and Communications perform different security jobs and contribute different outputs to the operating model.
• How Connected Information and Knitting Situational Awareness (KSA) turn individual observations into Shared Operational Understanding.
• How AI and automation can Gather, Filter, Connect, Analyze and Recommend—moving the human up the decision chain rather than removing the human from it.

Who Should Attend: Security leaders, consultants, specifiers, integrators and technology professionals responsible for designing and operating perimeter systems that turn detection and connected information into actionable understanding.

PART 3: From Decision to Measurable Outcome

Thursday, February 11, 2027 | 1 p.m. ET

Turning Earlier Understanding Into Coordinated Action and Better Results

Understanding what is happening is not the finish line.

Someone must decide what to do. The right people must act. And once the response begins, the situation continues to change.

The security advantage belongs to organizations that can make an informed decision, coordinate action, stay ahead of the live event and demonstrate whether the response improved the outcome.

What You’ll Learn:

• How Human-in-the-Loop combines data with judgment, authority and accountability to produce an Operational Decision.
• How role-based communication, Operational Readiness and coordination help internal teams and external responders act around a shared understanding as the situation changes.
• How to measure time, actual impact and comparable outcomes—and use that evidence to improve the security program.

Who Should Attend: Security and risk leaders, security operations and emergency management professionals, consultants and solution providers responsible for turning security information into decisions, coordinated response and measurable outcomes.