When the Threat Comes from Above: Drones and the Corporate Campus

Physical security has long been thought of in two dimensions. Fences, gates, guard posts, and cameras have been designed around a single assumption: that a threat must cross a line on the ground to reach a facility. That assumption no longer holds. Corporate campuses now face a threat that never touches the perimeter at all, because it simply flies over it.

A recent piece from AeroDefense, lays out the problem. Corporate campuses hold enormous amounts of valuable data and intellectual property. Most have invested heavily in the physical and cyber protections needed to keep bad actors out at ground level. What they have not accounted for is the three dimensional challenge that drones introduce. A small, inexpensive quadcopter can now be used for corporate espionage, surveillance of secure areas, and in ways that traditional ground based security simply was not designed to detect.

According to the FAA's Center of Excellence for UAS Research, drone sightings across the country grew by nearly 20 percent in the first three quarters of 2025 compared to the year before, with the highest concentrations in California, Florida, Illinois, Texas, and New York. Writing for Security Management, industry analysts have described drone activity as an accelerating trend in high density and critical infrastructure environments, one that security practitioners can no longer treat as an edge case.

The International Security Journal recently observed that drones are becoming an everyday corporate security problem rather than one confined to major public events and stadiums. The article notes that a drone does not need to enter a building, land on a roof, or carry a payload to create risk. It only needs to observe, record, or appear at the wrong moment, whether that means mapping a logistics yard's delivery schedule or capturing footage of a facility most companies would rather keep private.

Regulators are beginning to respond. In June of 2025, two executive orders directed federal agencies to help the private sector detect, monitor, and respond to unauthorized drone activity, with the FAA tasked with restricting flights over critical infrastructure and the Department of Homeland Security tasked with issuing guidance for facility owners deploying detection systems. New Remote ID requirements are being phased in as well, giving law enforcement more information about who is flying what and where. But as the International Security Journal piece points out, regulation should not be confused with protection. Rules only help when operators comply with them, and plenty of the drones that matter most to security teams belong to people who have no intention of doing so.

For corporate security leaders, the response must mirror what already happened at the ground level a generation ago: layered, technology enabled detection paired with a clear plan for what happens next. That increasingly means radar and RF detection systems that can flag an unauthorized aircraft the moment it enters a campus's airspace, paired with protocols for verifying intent and, where legally permitted, responding. Just as important is treating the airspace above a facility as a formal part of the risk assessment rather than an afterthought bolted on after an incident occurs.

The perimeter fence was never meant to protect a building from the sky. As drones become cheaper, more capable, and more common, corporate campuses that continue to plan security in two dimensions will find themselves defending only half the problem.

Protecting Executives on the Move: A Practical Guide to Personal Security in 2026

Executive travel has always carried risk, but the nature of that risk continues to evolve. Increased visibility, real-time information sharing, and a more unpredictable global environment have raised the stakes. Protection is no longer just about reacting to threats. It is about anticipating them.

Preparation begins well before travel. Advance work remains one of the most effective tools available. Understanding the destination, identifying potential risks, and establishing clear movement plans sets the foundation. This does not need to be overly complex, but it does need to be deliberate.

Situational awareness is equally important, and it extends beyond the executives themselves. Drivers, assistants, and security personnel must all operate with a shared understanding of risk. Small details matter. Route familiarity, crowd dynamics, and changes in behavior can signal developing issues.

Hotels present a unique set of challenges. They are public spaces by design, which makes control difficult. Room selection, discreet check-in procedures, and limiting public exposure within the property can significantly reduce risk. Elevators, lobbies, and hotel bars are common points of vulnerability.

Technology plays an expanding role in executive protection, but it should be used thoughtfully. Location tracking, secure communication tools, and real-time intelligence provide value when properly managed. However, over-reliance on digital tools can create new vulnerabilities, especially if those systems are not secure.

Ultimately, personal security is about layering defenses. No single measure is sufficient. Physical awareness, careful planning, and appropriate use of technology work together to reduce exposure.

Executives do not need to operate in fear, but they do need to operate with awareness. The goal is not to eliminate risk entirely. It is to manage it intelligently.

The Rise of Biometric Access Control: Balancing Convenience, Security, and Privacy

Fingerprint scanners, facial recognition systems, and iris readers are no longer the exclusive province of government facilities and spy thrillers. Across healthcare campuses, corporate headquarters, schools, and even mid-sized office buildings, biometric access control is rapidly becoming the go-to solution for organizations looking to tighten their physical security posture. But as with any powerful technology, the benefits come paired with serious questions that every organization must wrestle with before deployment.

The numbers make the growth trend undeniable. According to industry analysts, the global biometric access control market was valued at $11.1 billion in 2025 and is projected to reach $15.2 billion by 2029. That is a substantial investment signal, and it reflects a genuine shift in how businesses think about verifying who walks through their doors. Traditional access methods — keycards, PIN codes, physical keys — all share a common vulnerability: they authenticate an object or a piece of knowledge, not a person. Biometrics flips that equation entirely. A fingerprint, a face, an iris pattern — these belong to an individual and cannot easily be transferred, shared, or stolen in the way a keycard can.

Why Organizations Are Making the Switch

The practical advantages of biometric systems are compelling. Beyond enhanced security, they offer meaningful operational benefits. Employees no longer face the all-too-familiar frustration of a forgotten access badge or a misplaced key fob. Entry logs become automatically tied to a verified identity, creating reliable audit trails that are invaluable during security reviews or incident investigations. And in high-traffic facilities, the speed of a biometric scan — typically less than a second — keeps entry points moving efficiently without sacrificing oversight.

There is also a scalability argument. A biometric system installed at a ten-person startup can grow alongside the organization without requiring a wholesale replacement of infrastructure. Modern platforms allow administrators to add, adjust, or revoke access from a centralized dashboard, whether they are on-site or working remotely. This kind of operational flexibility matters enormously in a business environment where the workforce is increasingly mobile and distributed.

The Privacy Imperative

None of this means the technology is without risk — far from it. Biometric data is categorically different from other forms of identification because it is permanent. If a password is compromised, you change it. If a keycard is stolen, you deactivate it. If a person's facial geometry or fingerprint data is exposed in a breach, there is no corrective action that can undo the damage. That immutability is precisely what makes biometrics so effective for security — and precisely what makes mishandling it so consequential.

Workplace environments add another layer of complexity. When employees are required to submit biometric data as a condition of employment, that raises legitimate ethical and legal questions. Are workers being adequately informed about how their data is stored and who has access to it? Are there non-biometric alternatives for those with concerns? These are not merely theoretical considerations. In the United States, more than 20 states have enacted or proposed biometric privacy laws as of 2025, with Illinois leading the way through its Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which mandates written consent, clear retention policies, and secure storage, with significant penalties for violations.

Best Practices for Responsible Deployment

Organizations considering biometric access control should approach deployment with the same philosophy that has been championed in broader data privacy discussions: collect only what you need, protect what you collect, and be transparent with the people whose data you hold. This aligns with the well-established Privacy by Design framework — the principle that privacy protections should be built into systems from the outset, not tacked on after the fact.

On the technical side, modern biometric platforms are increasingly built with privacy-preserving architectures in mind. On-device processing — where biometric matching occurs locally without raw data ever leaving a terminal — is gaining traction. Encrypted templates replace stored images of fingerprints or faces, meaning there is no reversible data to expose if a system is breached. These are the kinds of safeguards that responsible vendors are building in, and they are the right questions to ask when evaluating providers.

The bottom line is this: biometric access control, implemented thoughtfully, represents a genuine step forward for physical security. But it demands a level of organizational maturity and legal awareness that not every business has yet developed. The technology is ready. The question is whether the policies, consent workflows, and data governance practices are ready to go along with it.

Sources

• Newmark Security – The Rise of Biometrics in Access Control
• Parabit – Biometric Privacy Laws in 2025
• Security Force – Advancements in Biometric Security: What to Expect in 2025
• Bipartisan Policy Center – Prevalence of Biometric Data and Security Concerns 

Healthcare Needs to Focus on a Centralized, Unified Approach to Physical Security

Healthcare centers are some of the most important facilities in the world.

They house patients who are being treated for serious illness and are receiving life-saving surgery. Their buildings also contain expensive, state-of-the-art technology and protect sensitive and important personal data.

It’s no surprise that these facilities are often major targets for serious physical breaches.

PBS NewsHour reports that "health care workers are five times as likely to experience workplace violence as other workers.” They cite statistics from the National Nurses United 2022 survey that found 40 percent of nurses said they’ve witnessed an increase in violent incidents.

In a new piece for HealthTech, Jonathan Karl, director of healthcare sales at CDW, and Josh Peacock, healthcare strategist for CDW, explain that health systems need to update their physical security protocols to address rising, ever more complicated threats.

They write that healthcare companies need to take a “more holistic approach.” This means making way for instituting centralized command centers.

Crafting a more centralized approach to security

“As care delivery becomes more encompassing of a patient’s well-being, an organization’s security approach should also become more integrated and provide visibility into all the parts that make it whole,” they write.

They point to HonorHealth — located in Scottsdale, Arizona — as one example. They said the organization supports “a network operations center,” which gives the security team the opportunity to stay on top of a wide range of surveillance cameras that proliferate through the system’s various buildings.

Once an issue comes up, the team can respond swiftly in real time.

While this is important, Peacock and Karl write that the next step is to “incorporate more predictive analytics into the video surveillance system to better support security staff.”

A common theme in any discussion around devising modern physical security strategies involves the pressing reality that cloud-connected, state-of-the-art devices must be implemented. From there, all staff must be properly trained and vetted.

Giving security staff more control

“A healthcare organization with multiple facilities or a sprawling campus may have disparate security teams and localized data feeds for cameras. A unified system would offer a better overview and improve coordination and response to incidents. This is especially an issue for ambulatory locations that may not have 24/7 coverage,” Karl and Peacock add.

They write that a centralized command center will give a healthcare company improved visibility and control — especially in the case of sprawling campuses that involve multiple buildings.

Having a central nucleus around which the rest of the security apparatus orbits means the team can efficiently connect with emergency services and police if the need arises.

The AI future

Finally, the two experts point to how artificial intelligence (AI) will only continue to complicate and improve healthcare security.

“The growth of artificial intelligence-powered tools in healthcare works as both a threat to security and an opportunity to improve defenses and cover skill gaps,” they write. “A central team can leverage AI to monitor data for tracking users and access that falls outside of an organization’s governance or baseline expectations.”