The ‘terrorist’ label was invented as a means of abrogating human rights by governments who felt they were encumbered by the obligation to protect human rights. “Terrorist” labeling is a totalitarian-authoritarian apparatus to avoid culpability for its actions when a government decides the easiest solution to its problem is outright murder.
It seems to me like terrorism has a pretty plain definition: Using violence against civilians/non-combatants to further a ideological goal, primarily via fear.
It's often misused as an excuse, but there are actual terrorists, the word has a meaning and we should not let it be watered down by either the people wanting to use it as an excuse or the people trying to shroud terrorism in something else.
As citizens of nations which use terrorism as a tool for their political purposes, it is long since past the point we let ourselves be bullied by terminology and started instead to enforce the legislation required to rid our own ranks of war criminals - who are factually terrorists.
Like how they are now charging the UHC CEO suspect with terrorism
Then, if you support the guy, now a terrorist, well then you can be called a terrorist too
I'll gently push on the premise though: hacking isn't worse for the victims than death, obviously, but I think it's possible weaponizing of exploits does more total damage. Both collateral, due to the manufacturing of exploits which ultimately leak and harm a bunch of unrelated actors, and because the marginal hacking is lower cost, practically and politically. So a given attack is likely to be used against groups we'd recognize less clearly as "terrorists" / deserving of the harm / etc.
Why speak in hypotheticals supporting some phantom opinion? Concern trolling is even worse.
You said it is okay / allowed because "terrorists". Otherwise, it is a heinous crime. Just like the Pegasus one.