On June 30, 2000 President Clinton signed the "Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act" (ESIGN) using his electronic signature ID, and thereby established the validity of electronic signatures for interstate and international commerce.

In the fours year prior to this Act's passage a dozen states had passed similar laws and guidance for state specific business purposes, and in the five years since the Act's passing every other state has passed similar laws and legislation. What does it all mean, and in the end how can it benefit businesses, individuals and the nation or world as a whole?

The best way to answer a question like this is to take a look at the origins of the law, and understand the reasoning behind its passage and the passage of the state specific laws.

The Birth of the Electronic Signature - Faxing

In the 1980's companies and even some progressive individuals began using fax machines for high priority or time sensitive delivery of paper based documents. Today, the fax machine is a staple of the business world. Most people do not even consider the original hurdles this new medium created, nor do they consider its impact on the speed of communication and the advantages of its use. However in its infancy many of the same issues surrounding electronic communications and electronic signatures had to be resolved when utilizing the facsimile.

When the first contract was signed and faxed it created the basis for the discussion of electronic signature validity. After all it was the first time someone could sign something, place it in a machine, send it from one phone line to another and deliver a digitally reproduced signature. The path this signature took was not controllable or traceable, and in most cases it traversed miles of wire before reaching its destination, so how could it be considered a valid signature? The intentions of the signature were clear to everyone, but businesses wanted to know they could count on the validity of the signature, and if no one actually witnessed the action of one individual or of a corporation how could a business put any faith in it? This of course caused quite a stir and in rapid fashion the courts ruled this signature carried the same validity as if the parties were standing in the room together. With this, the fax became standard operating procedure world-wide.

The courts found validity in this method of signature capturing and businesses also felt secure in this method. Quite a leap of faith considering the complications caused by fax machines early on. Many people didn't realize that the original fax paper's ink would vanish after a period of time and you had to make another copy of the fax using a copier if you wanted to store it permanently. Also many times the quality of the image was poor or barely legible, but businesses understood the intention and would consider it signed even if there was only a partially legible signature. So in essence you had a copy of a copy of a digital image, and even with so many loopholes for alteration and criminal malfeasance the fax still worked and business flourished.

The business logic behind this thinking was easily justifiable. Before the fax machine, the contract could have been signed verbally between the sales person and the client, and then somewhere down the road a paper copy would have been signed and mailed. Many sales before the fax machine were consummated with a simple "OK let's do it" comment over the phone. This drive to get business and make the wheels turn demonstrates the most vital point in an electronic communications based world, or for that matter in a digital world with no physical or direct contact, is most businesses can operate on trust. They provide a service to a customer and the customer trusts they will provide that service in a satisfactory manner, while the service provider trusts that the customer will pay for services rendered.

Trust is not a new thing in business; it was often indicated by a hand-shake or "You have a deal", and that was all you needed to get a deal done. Has that changed today? I believe the answer is no, but what about the courts, and their opinion on the validity of the electronic signature? After all the courts' goal is not just to keep the wheels turning and generate revenue, so why did they trust this type of signature and what was the legal question this signature answered? This line of thinking brings us back to Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act or as it is more commonly known, the ("ESIGN") Act.