Fuzzy picture

Browsing routinely through the local media my attention is at times pulled to news removed from the topics I usually deal with in this column. They occasionally provide glimpses of the local society and economy that can be surprising, entertaining or even illuminating. One such news item popped up recently.
With scant details, we were informed that police had detained a non-resident worker who had the “habit of taking ‘indecorous’ pictures of female students at the university where he worked [not identified].” Furthermore, the criminal police found “over 140,000 non-authorised pictures in his computer and portable hard drive.” The case was transferred to the Public Prosecutor’s office. Whilst reading this short and apparently minor piece of news, I was struck by various questions that, unfortunately, it did not clarify. I could find no reference on the police website either.
First, what does “indecorous photos” mean (in this context, ‘indecent’ or ‘lewd’ could be other acceptable translations, I think, of the Portuguese expression used in the report, ‘fotografias indecorosas’)? Does the law define that concept? In which cases is such ‘activity’ deemed illicit or criminal? And ‘non-authorised’ indicates what? Most of us take ‘non-authorised’ photos anytime we pull out our smartphones to capture some street action, or when we wander around with a camera hoping to satisfy our appetite for pictures, artistic or otherwise. Were all the non-authorised pictures also indecorous, whatever that actually means? How does anyone take over 140,000 unauthorised such photos?
As these questions are asked, the affair starts to seem rather odd. In no moment is it claimed that the photos were pornographic, a concept that is actually defined by law. Besides, the mere possession of pornography (we are not discussing taste here) is not illegal if dealing with adults (there can be no minors among university students). Assuming they could be considered pornographic, in the terms defined by law, was he trying to sell them, a commercial activity that is regulated and restricted, but not illegal? What is the actual accusation, which norms were presumably violated?
The more questions one asks, the more doubts creep in. It is not clear what laws were broken and under which legal authority the computer and hard drive searches, or the arrest, were conducted. In some ways, it recalls the saga of the flyers advertising personal services. Is this the law at work, or just some moralising drive cutting a few legal corners?