Terrorism law unites hackers and terrorists

Hackers who threaten to undermine governments or intimidate individuals through the use of their computers will now face arrest and prosecution if the cybercrime is made for religious, political or ideological ideals.

Home Secretary Jack Straw vowed to deal with terrorists more severely, claiming the Act enabled the government to react swiftly to high-tech attacks.

But Mike Pullen, associate at law firm DLA, claimed the Act was well intentioned but doubted its effectiveness.

"This is the usual case of government drafting a bill in broad terms and the test will come with its application. Then we will find out whether it is a huge head of steam with no substance behind it. There is quite a push on cybercrime these days," he said.

Royal Hansem, practice director at IT security firm @stake, agreed: "Cybercrime has become a bigger deal and this act is more of a barometer of what is happening in the general market place."

He claimed the vague nature of the legislation highlighted the government's failure to understand the real complexity of corporate security.

"Companies cannot rely on this legislation for protection. It is not sophisticated enough to react to the crime and too young to act as a deterrent. The cost of replication of data is zero but a company can be hurt to the tune of millions by it," said Hansem.

Ex-hacker Perri 6 stressed the need for the Act: "I am in no doubt that information warfare endangers lives. I have no idea how they do it, but I know people who could bring the NHS down in minutes through viruses."

The Act has been criticised for being too vague in its definition of motivation, which could lead to have-a-go hackers facing prosecution.

Andrew Rigby, associate at legal firm Tarlo Lyons, said: "The devil, as always, is in the detail and it would have been helpful to have more detail on what ideology is. An act of terrorism using a computer is almost certainly an ideological cause but not all hackers have a political motivation."