Sure, hacking could be used to kill civilians with the objective of causing mass terror to advance a political agenda. But until Mr. Hammond either attempts, in

Sure, hacking could be used to kill civilians with the objective of causing mass terror to advance a political agenda. But until Mr. Hammond either attempts, incites or announces plans to take action with the objective of killing people, he is not a terrorist. If the term "terrorist" has any sensible definition other than "people who oppose us politically and who we don't like, and maybe do random criminal actions that are covered under more normal laws". If he only causes economic harm, I could be convinced that he can still be guilty of: destruction of property, computer fraud and perhaps sabotage. But terrorism?