While cameras were definitely common, they also weren't quiet as ubiquitous as they're today.
Lots of families only had them for trips etc, not readily available for kids to make photos of screens.
Not saying that cheating was impossible but uneasy unlike to now where there's a library for everything.
Cameras just weren't as ubiquitous as today. Unironically arguing that point is silly. They just weren't (I know you didn't, but we're in a comment chain that made that argument).
Yes, in most groups of people, there were a few of them that had cameras readily available, but it wasn't the norm for everyone.
What was available (not just cameras, but ocr etc pp) was a lot less accessable then it is today - where you just point your phone at it and it transparently extracts you the full text of whatever is on screen/lens, consequently the issue got a lot more problematic and widespread, which was the only thing what was put forward here.
I hate how incompetent tech writing and marketing rewrote and simplified mobile phone history into pre/post-iphone. Yes, we did have touchscreens, smartphones and camera-enabled devices many years before the iPhone. Arguably, on several metrics, many Symbian/Linux/blackberry phones of that era are better smartphones than today's iPhone/Androids as defined by hardware capabilities which got removed over time while arbitrary constraints got added on the software front.
The iPhone which made it was the 3G.
Now I have a N86 which I'm going to keep until the last 2G goes offline.
I was about 15 at the time, I'd had multiple digital cameras and had a phone with a crappy camera on it. All of my friends had digital cameras. Myspace had already peaked, Facebook was taking off, and that was largely driven by kids taking pictures.
The idea that the ability to take a photo wasn't ubiquitous for big parts of the western world in 2005 doesn't seem accurate.
At least by typing them the typer might learning something. :)