The bikes are built in a way that you don’t want to steal them. They drive down that probability in at least two ways:

Quite heavy and their specific number highly visible.

The lock is nearly unbreakable, a bolt which is locked inside the bike frame. I wouldn’t know of a way to crack this physically without demolishing the bike.

It’s much easier to steal any other bike instead.

I guess the main upside is vastly reduced technical infrastructure costs so you can get over a certain small percentage of stolen bikes after reducing this probability enough.

I watched someone dismantle a jump bike lock last week outside my apartment while walking my dog. Considering that and how often I see homeless riding them in sf, I suspect they are more easily stolen than you suggest.

Oh sorry I didn’t mean the jump bikes but the aforementioned DB bikes in Munich: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=call+a+bike+munich

I would be very surprised if someone can dismantle them on the street. But nevertheless if you have another bike right next to it which is worth more, lighter, faster and easier to crack why even bother?

Perhaps the thief would prefer a bike that isn't likely to get stolen.

Maybe you snap a pic of the bike where you parked it and upload it as part of the park/lock/check-in process?

Not sure how they do it exactly, but one possibility is CCTV cameras watching drop-off locations. You can then compare footage at the timestamp it was reported on-location if there's a dispute.

Combine this with a few anti-theft procedures that don't involve GPS / internet (as commonly used by bikeshare programs in various municipalities) and you've got something that might work.

CCTV video files are just a less efficient form of GPS and time stamp logging. JSON from a GPS receiver is more straightforward.

GPS logging, however, contains a bunch of data unrelated to the security of bicycles themselves.

I also don’t understand how mentioning JSON is even relevant in this thread.

It’s to point out that their suggestion of CCTV is really just a type of unstructured logging, and isn’t much better than the structured logging that seems to be going on today.

The point here isn't about structured vs. unstructured logging: it's about addressing the possibility that legitimate users get blamed for theft.

This sort of dispute is probably going to end up in a legal forum at some point. In that case, video footage from a device that's not physically on the bike (and therefore much harder to tamper with) is going to carry much, much, much more weight than GPS traces. Also, you usually know exactly who is supposed to have access to CCTV camera systems / footage, and can therefore have those people make legally binding representations as to their accuracy / fidelity.

(Of course, with regards to this problem, your objective as a service provider is to end up in court as infrequently as possible. You'd be more likely to invest in anti-theft measures so you can get the probability of theft low enough to reasonably write off as part of opex.)