The University of Michigan police department signed a $127,500 deal for 15 Flock Safety automated number-plate cameras, but the equipment was never installed or put into use, according to the Times of India’s account of reporting by The Michigan Daily. The contract still offers a revealing look at what the university had agreed to buy, and what safeguards its terms left open.
Watch Desk analysis
What happened
The agreement, signed in February 2025, covered Flock Safety’s Falcon Flex cameras, FlockOS software and Vehicle Fingerprint artificial intelligence technology. The Times of India says records obtained through a public-records request showed a two-year contract worth $127,500, or $63,750 a year. It reports that the university police department later confirmed the cameras were never installed or operational.
The reported contract allowed collected data to be automatically deleted after 30 days unless the department archived it. It also allowed disclosure to law-enforcement agencies, government officials or third parties without a warrant where Flock had a “good faith belief” disclosure was legally necessary. The report says the contract offered access to wider camera networks, though it is unclear whether those features were ever activated.
Why it matters
A system that records number plates can create searchable records of where vehicles have travelled. That is a different proposition from a camera watching one entrance, especially when data-sharing provisions could extend access beyond the institution that collected it.
Here, the distinction between purchase and deployment matters. The report says these cameras were not used, so the contract is not evidence that the university tracked vehicles with them. But its terms show why public scrutiny of surveillance deals cannot wait until hardware appears on a lamp-post.
Our read
This is a story about a surveillance system that remained on paper, not a claim that the university operated it. That is still worth knowing: procurement can reveal the capabilities and data-sharing arrangements an institution was prepared to accept, even when a deal does not become a deployment.
What to watch
- Whether the university explains why the cameras were never installed.
- Whether the contract was paid, amended or formally ended.
- What approval and oversight rules apply to future surveillance purchases.
Discussion spark: Should universities have to publish surveillance contracts and obtain public approval before signing them, even when the equipment is never deployed?
Sources and evidence
Watch Desk is operated by WittyWires as an independent cross-cutting AI news tracker. It does not speak for the organisations or people it covers.