I see your argument; actually it's very good and I mostly agree with the point made.
But still I'd prefer to see other, more applicable, laws used.
Proving somebody saw these nude images (if there are any) is going to be a huge legal minefield. And even then classing it as child pornography is difficult for a variety of reasons.
When I talk about intent I mean the intent to see it as sexual content. Clearly the proper thing to do is delete any inappropriate images - and in this respect there may be some indecency laws that apply. But CP is about the sexual abuse of children and the use of indecent material in a sexual context. This has already been watered down here in the UK to the point of making a conviction barely an inconvenience to them.
School administrators were overhead talking about how they liked the cameras because it was a mini drama of the personal lives of students in their building... how is that not clear intent? They were looking at the photos for fun. Sure you can't prove their cornea lined up with the image, but come on, have you ever heard a pedophile say 'I took the pictures with my eyes closed and didn't look at them, I just made them available to others'?
But still I'd prefer to see other, more applicable, laws used.
Proving somebody saw these nude images (if there are any) is going to be a huge legal minefield. And even then classing it as child pornography is difficult for a variety of reasons.
When I talk about intent I mean the intent to see it as sexual content. Clearly the proper thing to do is delete any inappropriate images - and in this respect there may be some indecency laws that apply. But CP is about the sexual abuse of children and the use of indecent material in a sexual context. This has already been watered down here in the UK to the point of making a conviction barely an inconvenience to them.