Hearsay, from a legal standpoint, is an out of court statement presented in court as evidence used to prove the thing the statement is saying. In its most basic form, it’s literally what the word means. “I heard Julie say that she saw Jim run that red light.” In an actual trial, that testimony, in the US, would not be admissible. You’d have to call Julie to the stand and have her say that she saw Jim run the red light. You can’t have someone else saying that Julie told them that she saw it. And technically, audio and video recordings are hearsay. They are “statements”, and they’re made out of court. Historically, they have been allowed under an exception because of their reliability. But now, with AI and deep fakes, I think we’re entering an era where the reliability is going to be suspect, especially when the video is from a third party.
ETA: I know this is Australia, but in the US, I think this would also run into due process problems. They’re using evidence from third parties to fine people without a trial. I know there’s probably a way to dispute the charge and go to court, but still…I think with a government controlled traffic camera, you could argue that you have due process through the political process. In other words, if people don’t like these cameras, they can elect officials who are opposed to them and will remove them. Or they can express their opinion at city council meetings or open hearings or whatever that they are opposed to these. But a third party dash cam? I dunno. It feels insufficient to me.
