Not 100% sure what to think of this one.
Seems a bit wonko . . . basically if I look at an image I'm innocent, but if I know there's a browser cache I'm guilty??? So basically we're criminalizing techies and nerds?
Looks like something which needs to be addressed properly.
Actually. If it's ONLY in your cache, you're NOT guilty. If it's on your HDD, then they investigate.
In any case I'm not really sure about the viewing thing. I understand the implications with the 'unintentional viewing' but what if your the type of creep who intentionally legally views child porn? Now you can get away with looking at child porn as long as you don't download it or know your browser has a cache. Seems a bit off to me.
Again though I can see how's it's a bit challenging since I scrolled down to find the kids off the incredibles once. Plus with many search engines you may click a link and find that link isn't what you were looking for. I guess it's a tough one to work out. I'd say it should be more a question of whether a person was actually looking for such to begin with and his or her reaction after finding it by accident.
Webshots (Which my mother uses) downloads a set of pictures that are 'tagged' in a certain way. Like say... Waterfalls. So Webshots will look for everything listed as 'Waterfall'. Now some people may inappropriately list Sunsets as a Waterfall. Which my mother didn't want.
Thing is, most porn sites do the same thing, but tend to keep it 'on site'. So you might get some mislabeled pictures, some of which might be questionable.