Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy
Pictures, pornography, indecency:
I find it fascinating that the implicit assumption, in all these comments, is that any picture of a naked human being is, per se, pornographic; not even just indecent - pornographic. It is such attitudes that create the problem. They lead to proud parents being reported for pictures of their young children playing with bubbles in the bath. They stop toddlers from being allowed to run naked at the seaside.
Please do distinguish nakedness in the context of sexual activity or lasciviousness from pictures, whether artistic or for the family album.
Surely, the correct term here is not pornography: these two were making an intimate, personal record for their own pleasure. I would class it as pornography only if it was intended for a wider distribution to titillate, make money or similar. The real thing here is that the unpleasant "boyfriend" betrayed the trust and intimacy he had enjoyed and caused harm to the girl by using their private record as pornography, without her agreement, to gain warped revenge. This, to my mind, should be very heavily punished as she is hurt and society, in its dependence on mutual trust, is hurt. His protestations about the unexpectedly wide audience are worthless: apart from their stupidity, an audience of a single third person would be bad enough. As for "openness": that still implies consent and mutuality. One sided openness is betrayal.
Lastly, I suspect it is a very small minority of people who whip out their smart phone to film themselves in the act. If that is the first thing on the mind of one of them, the other should find a real human being as soon as possible.