Following Poland`s announcement on 19 January 2012 that the contract had been signed on 26 January, a number of Polish government websites were shut down by denial-of-service attacks that began on 21 January.  The websites included the Prime Minister`s Office, the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, the President and the Sejm.  On 23 January, the Polish Prime Minister`s website was hacked. The content of the site has been replaced by a video calling on users to oppose the privacy threats attributed to ACTA.  On 24 January, more than a thousand people protested outside the European Parliament office in Warsaw.  On 25 January, at least 15,000 people and a half demonstrated in Krakow, 5,000 in Wroclaw, with strong protests in cities across the country.   Polish social sites Demotywatory.pl, JoeMonster.org, Kwejk.pl, AntyWeb.pl and Wykop.pl have announced that they are considering a blackout similar to that of Wikipedia in 2012, inspired by SOPA, to protest Poland`s plan to sign the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement.  A poll conducted on 27 January by Millward Brown SMG/KRC showed that 64% of Poles opposed the signing of the agreement, 60% thought that the treaty would not achieve its main objective and 50% thought it would reduce fundamental freedoms.  On 27 January, tens of thousands of protesters across the country.  Following the protests, Interia.pl and RMF FM facilitated 1.8 million emails to MEMBERS of ACTA, 97% of which were against the contract.
 This chapter describes the scope of the agreement as well as the relationship with other agreements. It argues that, as soon as this agreement enters into force, there are still obligations under other agreements (Article 1) and that the agreement applies only the intellectual property rights that exist in the country that enforces the treaty (Article 3). Countries may impose stricter measures than those provided for by the treaty (Article 2) and should disclose information (confidential) for law enforcement purposes (Article 4). The treaty specifically applies to free zones (Article 5). Parties may consult with stakeholders or IP authorities of another party to identify and reduce risks. Information, including information that is not limited to information that helps identify and direct suspicious shipments, can be shared by parties for border enforcement purposes. When an importing party seizes offending goods, it can provide that information to assist an executing party in prosecuting the offenders. Since ACTA is an international treaty, it is an example of political money laundering used to introduce and implement legal changes. Money laundering allows the dissolution of the legislation through negotiations between private members of the signatories` executive bodies. This method avoids the application of public legislation and its judicial review. Once ratified, non-member businesses may be required to comply with ACTA requirements or they will not be protected by port security. Similarly, the use of trade and other incentives to encourage other nations to adopt treaties is a standard approach in international relations.