Recent proposals by the G7 and Russia to clamp down on terrorists and terrorism do not define the action that is prohibited. Instead, governments communicate a threat and thereby allow greater official attention to focus on issues such as camouflage charities and terrorist use of the Internet. Nevertheless, it is somewhat of a truism to note that terrorist violence is ultimately defined or characterized, for purposes of legal prohibition, within a highly politicized atmosphere. However, democratic governments heighten public perceptions of threat to justify the use of such anti-terrorist devices as official and unofficial methods of surveillance and Internet monitoring. These approaches result in turn in an increase in arbitrary constraints on individual private behavior. Reference notes (Author abstract modified)