A majority of Americans say they have never heard the term describing an unauthorized person following someone through a locked door, according to a new national survey released Wednesday — a gap experts say helps explain how recent intrusions at Harvard University, the University of California, Los Angeles and 30 Rockefeller Center occurred.
The independent study, conducted for a physical-security technology firm, found that 58% of respondents were unfamiliar with the concept of "tailgating," while 45% reported personally witnessing or experiencing someone entering a secured space without using their own credentials. The survey comes after three incidents this summer in which individuals gained access to secured areas by following authorized people.
Three breaches put spotlight on an old vulnerability
In May, a man is accused of following students through a secured UCLA residence entrance and sexually assaulting four undergraduates inside dorm rooms. In the same period, an intruder reportedly followed a Harvard student past a gate and a badge-secured door at Lowell House and attempted to force entry into her room. In July, a person walked behind an employee into a restricted section of 30 Rockefeller Center and confronted an NBC News employee with a racial slur before being detained by security.
"Tailgating is the crime that occurs before a more serious crime. It is every security director's nightmare," said Tina D'Agostin, CEO of Alcatraz AI, a company that develops physical security technology.
Security professionals and the survey's sponsor argue that the incidents reveal limitations in longstanding entry-control systems, such as badge readers, which they describe as outdated and insufficient to stop someone who follows an authorized person through an access point.
Survey findings and implications
The study’s two headline statistics — 58% unfamiliarity with the term and 45% personal experience with unauthorized entry — underscore a paradox: many people see or suffer the behavior but do not recognize it as a specific security issue. That disconnect can affect how institutions train staff, design access-control procedures and educate the public about everyday security risks.
Security vendors have pointed to technological upgrades such as biometric readers, anti-tailgating sensors and video analytics as tools to reduce the risk of unauthorized entry. But adopting such systems can be costly and requires institutional will, training and ongoing oversight.
Industry officials also say behavioral measures matter: badge holders should be trained to avoid holding doors open for unknown individuals in secure areas and to report suspicious behavior to security personnel immediately.
- 58% of survey respondents had not heard the term "tailgating."
- 45% reported witnessing or experiencing someone enter a secured space without their own credentials.
- Three recent incidents at prominent institutions involved unauthorized entry enabled by following authorized individuals.
| Statistic | Value |
|---|---|
| Unfamiliar with "tailgating" | 58% |
| Experienced or witnessed unauthorized entry | 45% |
| Notable recent incidents | 3 (Harvard, UCLA, 30 Rockefeller Center) |
Beyond technology and training, the incidents have prompted questions about institutional accountability and the adequacy of campus and workplace security practices. On campuses and in media facilities alike, leaders must weigh privacy, cost and operational impacts when choosing how to bolster access control.
Law enforcement agencies continue to investigate the individual criminal cases tied to the reported attacks. Security advocates say the broader conversation should focus on reducing opportunities for unauthorized access through combined technological, procedural and educational approaches.
The survey and the summer's incidents illustrate a recurring challenge for public and private institutions: how to translate awareness of everyday safety risks into effective prevention that stops the smallest security lapse before it leads to more serious harm.
Reporting for this article relied on the survey release and publicly reported accounts of the three incidents. Further developments in the ongoing investigations could alter details of those cases.
