Re: You'd have to be
Utter bollocks AC.
Either criminals or terrorists ARE such a massive threat, and the current moves are the right thing and all is good. Or it's a complete over-reaction to a foreseeable problem.
I'm not sure how the UK is a haven for cyber-criminals over and above other ones. More details please, laws that protect them? That the UK is a hotbed of international tax evasion and money laundering, protected by laws from an empire that no longer exists (non-doms, the outer and inner tax islands) but I didn't think it was any more "cyber" in it's crime than most equivalent western european nations. Estonia, Russia, China, the Czech Republic all spring to mind as more obvious cyber crime locales where the money from ID theft, invoice fraud and CC scams end up.
I agree cybercrime is bad. I've had UK family members who got hit by support scams who didn't get their money back (debit card) and dutch family members who've been falsely billed who got most back (taken direct from bank account, bank refunded as soon as fraud complaint was lodged) and the police really couldn't give a shit. IMHO it was to avoid having a crime that almost certainly wouldn't get solved on the books. The banks cover it, because the convenience outweighs the costs. The criminals know this, have studied the systems in place, and so can pick on a weak, rich target with little personal risk, little chance of being investigated, and it's a corporate rather than personal crime, so Jo Public never feels robbed, just some paperwork or a phonecall.
No place should be free from international law, or from the international law of the USA? Pretty much everything emotive used to demand more laws to defend us is already illegal. The police can and should prevent people from setting off bombs, be it for political, personal or profit motive. We have the laws, we just need to enforce them.
Now onto terrorists. Golly. You know they don't spring fully formed after you sow some dragons teeth right? Like pirates, they only happen because other things are really really shitty. But they do have a nasty habit of once formed, sticking around, changing their "business model" as such. So bombing and invading countries might just happen to result in more, rather than less terrorists. But causing terrorists doesn't matter when spreading democracy and hydrocarbon love. Only when we need more laws, more governmental powers, more taxes, bit less freedom, but for safety! And the flag! And children!
Unless I live in a country that's an active war zone (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan) I'm more likely to be killed by a bee than a terrorist. In Syria, where Daesh is fielding a land army, I'm seven times more likely to killed by forces loyal to Assad than to Daesh. So even in their own territory, they are not the biggest threat to life. Halfway across the world, they are not an actual real threat. More than zero, for sure, but that's life for you.
But as a species, we can be really shit at assessing risk, and can have a strong personal worldview that will bend observations into reinforcing that over and above reality. So we worry more about things that sound scary, and do happen (but rarely) like shooting sprees* by terrorists and shark attacks, and demand that we pay some more taxes so the government can solve it for us, but we don't worry about the things that do kill us (heart attacks, cars) because we would prefer to keep the rewards and accept the risk of lifestyle choices and faster cars. So politicians play to the popular vote (Daesh is scary!) and not realism (but Putin is scarier! And the Chinks keep nicking all our shit!) to justify what they want/need/instructed.
TL&DR Bees are more deadly than terrorists. Assad is more deadly than Daesh. Humans are dumb in clever ways to suit themselves.
*YMMV depending upon locale