I challenge anyone to find actual foundation for the claim that unwittingly recording a child rape in the park is a crime even if the witness reports it and provides the video evidence. Seems to me that this is the "slippery slope" argument taken to unreasonable extremes.
"So imagine a scenario ten years down the road, as you’re taking a stroll in the park." .... "WHAM. You are now a criminal, guilty of recording, distributing, and possessing child pornography."
I find this highly implausible. Hypotheticals like this damage the argument. Crimes are caught on camera everyday. Seems to me the crime here (aside form the rape) is to knowingly destroy evidence of the crime, which the innocent strollers in this scenario are supposedly encouraged to do out fear for themselves. I have not thought about this enough to have a strong opinion other than simple gut reaction, but it seems more evidence to support this idea in particular is needed.
Input is almost always filtered. Without mincing the semantics of that, let's say you receive free-form NL query as input. You don't filter that to reduce it to core terms you send to the database? You don't remove prepositions? You don't tokenize at all? Input is ambiguous and reduced/filtered into pseudo-meaningful terms to return relevant output.
"a case of a 17 year old being prosecuted for child pornography for taking a picture of themselves."
Has this happened? Hypotheticals don't help any. We need facts in order to move forward with the conversation.
EDIT: it has, in fact, happened. The facts are indeed in Google.