"Automated Gates Put Access Decisions at the Centre of Site Security"
At a distribution centre, the gate is both a security boundary and the beginning of an operational process. A vehicle arrives with an expected purpose, but someone or something must establish whether it belongs on the site, where it may go and what should happen if its details do not match the planned visit. Accelerating that decision can reduce queues. It also increases the importance of defining exactly what the system has checked before the barrier opens.
Automation changes the division of work at this boundary. Information that a guard previously collected may be captured by cameras, while a yard vehicle may eventually move without a driver making local decisions. The security team still needs a clear basis for admission, restricted-area access and intervention. A vehicle being recognised, an appointment being found and a movement being authorised are related events, but each answers a different question.
Responses from EAIGLE, Holman and Freight Sidekick illustrate how gate processing, autonomous yard movement and delivery work are changing. Their comments primarily concern operational performance and automation, rather than a demonstrated reduction in physical-security incidents. For security managers, the useful task is to identify which controls must remain explicit as those processes become faster or involve fewer people.
Information Capture Is One Part of the Access Decision
Amir Hoss, CEO of EAIGLE, describes manual gate processing as a source of avoidable delay. In comments provided to The Supply Chainer, he explained how the company uses computer vision to accelerate information collection. His response makes a case for removing repetitive administrative work at the entrance. It does not specify the identity checks or access rules used at an individual customer site.
“Carriers can’t control the price of diesel, but they shouldn’t have to burn fuel waiting on paperwork. When a driver spends 10 minutes checking in at a gate, that’s time and money lost before the truck even gets into the yard. And much of that delay comes from manual processes that no longer need to be manual.
“We use AI-native computer vision to capture more than 25 data points in under 30 seconds, compared with roughly 10 minutes using traditional processes,” Hoss said.
The performance comparison is EAIGLE’s claim. The supplied response does not identify which data points are mandatory, how discrepancies are resolved or whether the timing includes an exception requiring human review. Those details matter to a security assessment. A fast routine transaction and a reliable process for an unexpected arrival are different capabilities.
For a physical-security team, the starting point is the admission decision itself. The site needs to define what evidence links the arriving vehicle, the person presenting it and the expected collection or delivery. It also needs to establish which mismatch prevents entry and which can be reviewed through an authorised exception process. Capturing more information creates value when those observations lead to a controlled and traceable decision.
A Cleared Barrier Does Not Authorise Every Movement
Once a truck enters, the security boundary becomes more granular. A driver may need access to a receiving office, a waiting area or a specific dock without being permitted elsewhere. A vehicle’s legitimate presence on site does not make every route or stopping location appropriate. Security and yard operations therefore need compatible instructions about where the admitted vehicle should go.
That distinction becomes more important when autonomous vehicles share the site. Joe Foster, Vice President of Robotics at Holman, said its work with ISEE will assess existing vehicles alongside the customer’s operating environment. He identified repetitive trailer movements as an initial application. His comments describe operational evaluation rather than a complete site-security architecture.
“As Holman and ISEE work closely with each customer to deploy autonomous solutions, we’ll focus on the metrics that matter most to that specific customer, including safety, productivity, utilization, reliability, and overall economics. The initial focus is repetitive trailer movement across environments such as distribution centers and manufacturing facilities, where autonomy can have an immediate operational impact,” Foster said.
For security managers, vehicle safety and protection against unauthorised activity remain separate responsibilities that must work together. A vehicle may navigate safely while still receiving an incorrect movement instruction. Conversely, a legitimate security intervention may create an operational obstruction that the automated system must recognise. Site planning needs to establish who can restrict a movement, how that instruction reaches operations and what evidence is retained afterwards.
The assessment should also cover abnormal situations. A closed lane, an unexpected person near a trailer or an incident requiring an area to be isolated can change the permissions under which a normal movement proceeds. Security personnel need an agreed way to communicate that change. The relevant test is whether the site can preserve control when the planned sequence is interrupted.
The Driver Still Performs Work Beyond Driving
Automation also changes what can be assumed about the person accompanying a load. Brian Hatt, Co-founder and Chief Technology Officer of Freight Sidekick, described the physical work that remains at many delivery locations. His response concerns the practical limits of transport automation. It shows why receiving procedures cannot be designed solely around the vehicle’s ability to reach the address.
“It's starting where the driving is most predictable: long highway runs in states where snow and ice are rare, and short fixed routes between a warehouse and a store or distribution center. The delivery stop comes last, because the hard part there isn't the driving. Someone has to run the liftgate, roll the pallet to the door and work with a receiver who isn't always ready. For a small business taking a few pallets, that's years away,” Hatt said.
At a secured facility, those tasks also determine where people need to go. Someone unloading a pallet may need a different access arrangement from a driver waiting in the cab. A receiver who is unavailable can leave a legitimate arrival outside its intended process. The site needs to decide where that person waits, who takes responsibility and how the handover resumes without informal access being granted to solve the delay.
These are operational circumstances with security consequences, rather than evidence that a particular delivery model is inherently insecure. The control should follow the work actually being performed. If duties move from a driver to a receiving employee, contractor or remote operator, the associated access permissions and escalation responsibilities need to move with them.
Measure Exceptions Alongside Processing Speed
The common performance measure across automated entrances is often time: how long the check-in takes, how quickly the vehicle clears the gate or how soon the trailer reaches a door. Physical security requires additional measures. A site also needs to understand how often arrivals fail verification, how exceptions are approved and whether access records explain the decision made.
A practical review should trace an arrival through admission, movement and departure. The record should make it possible to establish why the vehicle entered, where it was directed and who approved any departure from the planned process. Security teams should also test cases in which information is missing or contradictory. Those cases reveal whether the process remains controlled when a routine transaction becomes an exception.
Automation can remove administrative friction and give staff more time to examine irregular situations. Realising that benefit depends on preserving a clear decision point rather than treating information capture as approval. The barrier opening is the visible event. The security outcome rests on the evidence, permissions and intervention process behind it.
