> "And who is identifiable" is doing some heavy lifting here and could be legally ambiguous. Sure, that's what a jury and/or judge is for. The defendant has a

> "And who is identifiable" is doing some heavy lifting here and could be legally ambiguous. Sure, that's what a jury and/or judge is for. The defendant has a lot of potential defenses against a civil claim. The criminal portion of the law is tighter: : “(a) Offense.—Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, discloses or threatens to disclose an intimate digital depiction— :: “(1) with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm, or cause substantial harm to the finances or reputation of the depicted individual; or :: “(2) with actual knowledge that, or reckless disregard for whether, such disclosure or threatened disclosure will cause physical, emotional, reputational, or economic harm to the depicted individual, The legal definition of "reckless": https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless_disregard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless_disregard : reckless action is distinguished from negligent action in that the actor consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk, as opposed to merely being unreasonable. For example, in State v. Olson, a 1990 South Dakota Supreme Court decision, the court did not find a tractor driver who turned left at 5-15 mph and hit another car reckless because the prosecution could not prove that he was aware that there was an oncoming car.