Michael Gips, Managing Director at Kroll tells SJA about his predictions for security over the next 12 months.

A shifting landscape

Most security professionals recognize the cutting-edge technology driving the practice of security, such as AI/machine learning (ML), cloud-based platforms, robotics/autonomous vehicles, mobile access control and behavioral analytics.

Many also are contending with social, economic and business trends, such as manpower shortages, hybrid work schedules, anticorporate grievances represented by the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, globally dispersed teams, staff development challenges, sustainability demands and widespread mis- and disinformation.

As both a security professional and an attorney, what grabs my attention is how these factors will influence premises security litigation, specifically lawsuits alleging negligent security.

Such cases typically allege deficient screening, hiring, retention, staffing or training.

They often involve claims of outdated, faulty, poorly applied or absent technology.

Plaintiffs frequently allege a host of other issues, such as poor lighting, failure to warn of a hazardous condition and failure to implement or enforce security policies and procedures.

Advances in technology, as well as the abovementioned social/economic/business trends, will affect the equation.

As new and more effective security technology appears, which businesses will be expected to invest in which technology?

How often will it have to be maintained and upgraded? Will it need to be in constant use, or only at specific times or places? What about training requirements for especially sophisticated technology?

I recently worked a case as an expert witness for a property owner being sued for an attack on the premises.

The plaintiff contended that the owner should have had sophisticated systems of access control, weapons detection and facial recognition for a large publicly accessible property with many access points.

The case was settled before trial, but plaintiffs’ attorneys are bound to be aggressive as technology improves.

As another example, case law on the role of weapons detection systems (WDSs)/metal detectors is relatively rare and only a handful of cases even touch on the technology and its use.

However, yesterday’s metal detectors are today’s WDSs and as facilities such as schools and hospitals implement these more sophisticated systems, do they become the de facto standard of care?

Only for wealthy communities or well-resourced businesses? These questions just begin to touch on the relevant considerations.

Consider generative AI. It saves a tremendous amount of time drafting reports, security plans, risk assessments and other documents.

However if a complacent or overwhelmed security team delegates those functions to AI without human review and oversight, it introduces a new vector of liability if, say, an assessment misses a serious risk, it goes unmitigated and somebody gets injured as a result.

Social, economic and business trends are also likely to influence litigation.

Has the public support for the alleged killer of the UnitedHealthcare CEO triggered an enhanced duty to protect business executives on your premises?

In other cases, how will courts weigh such factors as a business’ inability to ameliorate staffing shortfalls or rampant misinformation, when those issues help create the conditions for an attack on the premises?

In the latter case, if an extremist group spreads an online rumor that a hospital is performing gender reassignment surgery on adolescents without their parents’ knowledge or consent, and a staff doctor is assaulted based on that false information, should the hospital have been expected to monitor social media platforms and identify the threat?

If so, what level of security would be required, and for how long?

There are a lot of unknowns introduced by new trends and developments, and I will be watching carefully.

Michael Gips

Michael is a security professional, attorney, writer, researcher and business executive.

In January 2025, he joined Kroll as a Managing Director in its Enterprise Security Risk Management practice.

He is also principal of Global Insights in Professional Security.

Previously, Michael served as the Chief Global Knowledge and Learning Officer for ASIS International and led the organization’s security function.

He has published, presented, trained and mentored widely in the security risk profession and beyond.

This article was originally published in the special February Influencers Edition of Security Journal Americas. To read your FREE digital edition, click here.