"US declines to join more than 70 countries in signing UN cybercrime treaty", 200 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45760328

  the first global framework “for the collection, sharing and use of electronic evidence for all serious offenses”.. the first global treaty to criminalize crimes that depend on the internet.. [it] has been heavily criticized by the tech industry, which has warned that it criminalizes cybersecurity research and exposes companies to legally thorny data requests.  Human rights groups warned.. [it] forces member states to create a broad electronic surveillance dragnet that would include crimes that have nothing to do with technology

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-un...

> states parties are obligated to establish laws in their domestic system to “compel” service providers to “collect or record” real-time traffic or content data. Many of the states behind the original drive to establish this convention have long sought this power over private firms.

So, (1) this is a dead letter because UN cybercrime isn't going to happen here, and (2) it's not a good treaty and I wouldn't support it anyways, but the UN cybercrime convention doesn't have any of the problematic terms discussed in this CJR article. It seeks to criminalize:

(7) Unlawful access to systems

(8) Interception and wiretapping

(9) Interfering with data (presumably: encrypting and ransoming databases)

(10) DOS attacks

(11) Knowlingly selling hacking tools to criminals

(12) Forging online documents

(13) Online wire fraud

(14) CSAM

(15) Solicitation and grooming

(16) Revenge porn

Articles 14-16 are the closest you get to something not "according to Hoyle" cybercrime. I wouldn't want them in my cybercrime treaty, but I'd be pretty chill about them being standalone domestic laws.

A reminder: no matter what a UN convention says, treaties don't preempt the US Constitution. We could not enforce a treaty that includes Nigeria's misinformation terms --- it would violate the First Amendment. (Also useful to know, contrary to widespread belief online, that a self-executing treaty is itself preempted by statutes passed after it).