>>115775
governments that give a shit tend to look for intent to seek and especially saving it from what I've seen
so you probably wouldn't get vanned unless they've built up a case on you and this is enough (assuming it would be considered pornographic -- I ain't clicking that shit lol) to confirm a pattern of behavior, unless your government is reallly trying to look like they're doing something and "protecting the children"
but I also have no faith that they aren't just saving a big list of shit you've looked at in a file and are just waiting to be like "we did a sting on so and so sites" when really all they did was get enough dirt on you that you'll lose a case
used to be a nuts conspiracy sort of idea ages ago, but it's just too easy now, there is no reason for a first world government to not have the kind of information that Google or Microsoft has on you, probably acquired by just scraping from those two

one thing to note is that in the US, it is in fact legal to have nude images of U-18 individuals, they just can't be pornographic -- various nudism societies use this fact to their advantage
still, the burden of proof is absolutely on you for them to not be considered pornographic, and they probably will be
from cases I can half-remember, posed shots, spread legs, focus on the bits you aren't normally supposed to see (surprisingly it isn't the presence of them, but the focus on them!), etc, are a big factor in determining that, and modeling magazines appealing to lolicon interests will probably fall afoul of that for most juries (;´ω`)

tl;dr: probably not van worthy if you don't already actively seek out this sort of thing, but only probably, governments are cunts