In the last three chapters, we traced the emergence of cyber-threats as a model of threats in modern times and analysed the political process that moved the threat onto the political agenda and led to subsequent alterations of its appearance. In order to see how cyber-threats are constructed, we introduced the concept of threat frames with three distinct parts (according to Snow and Benford 1988: 199-202): diagnostic framing, which is the act of defining a problem and assigning blame for the problem to an agent or agencies (this is the equivalent of designating the threat subject and referent object of security; Buzan et al. 1998: 32); prognostic framing, which deals with elaborating solutions and proposing specific strategies, tactics, and objectives by which these solutions may be achieved; and motivational framing, which means to rally the troops behind the cause or a ‘call for action’. The content of the threat frame – formulated by professionals of security – must appeal to the existing values and beliefs of the target audience (in our particular case, top-level decision-makers) to become effective. At the same time, many different aspects influence the conditions in which such a framing takes place, such as the beliefs and resources of the framing actors as well as institutions and the broader environment, all of which influence the framing process. The observable impact of the threat politics process is the establishment of countermeasures or policies.