With each passing day, the Internet became integrated in human life with the physical world. As the range of Internet applications broadened and the users became more sophisticated, it became harder to see a user’s experience as it first seemed. Since, the success in field of human activity leads to the crime, the world is introduced with the new but danger concept, cyber crime. The Internet was the world of cyberspace with virtual meeting, virtual streets and most important, virtual crimes. Many people started to argue that the absence of globally harmonized legislation was turning the cyberspace into an area of ever increasing worries and dangers.

Today, Information Technology is encompassing all walks of life all over the globe. With all path-braking technological developments, the Internet gives us an opportunity to act as a global community; advertise and operate over borders and beyond the control of any national government. The intense volume of information and simplicity of its transfer causes the further problems. The ownership of information or data is very hard to protect – the illicit use of copyright material is common place. The spread of false and malicious information is also a daily occurrence.

The traditional legal system have had great difficulty in keeping pace with the rapid growth of the Internet and its impact throughout the Internet. While dealing with some serious legal problem, people   expected the need of the cyberlaws to govern the new virtual world. The aim of the cyber laws or cyber related laws world wide is to harmonize the existing laws. Cyberlaws are made to lessen the legal issues in the future.

Instead, what Twitter did is, it apparently made a motion to unseal the subpoena. Twitter had been standing to do this because the sealing of the subpoena infringed upon its own ability to interact with its subscribers or customers. Twitter and other companies have a policy to notify the users before responding to a subpoena, or similar requests. It notified its users about the subpoena. In this way, Twitter has protected the privacy of its users, no matter who are they.

The act of WikiLeaks is not against the cyber laws. Their action can’t be considered as a cyber crime. According to the 19th article of the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to give and receive information through any media, regardless of frontiers. So, is it something wrong which WikiLeaks has done by releasing the United States diplomatic cables? What government did with Twitter is not technically a subpoena, but a judicially-authorized order.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that tech companies have stood up to requests for customer or user data. From Twitters response to WikiLeaks subpoena, we come to know that there is at least one company which is respecting our rights.  Though Twitter can’t really defy the subpoena, but at least they fought for disclosure. By standing up for its customers, Twitter showed the guts and principles. Twitter deserves recognition for its principles. We can hope that Twitter doesn’t face punishment for asking the judge to rule on the law in this case. Somehow, if Twitter is punished, we could guess what the industry norm can become.

When we refer to electronic signature from the security point of view, United States have Electronic Signatures Acts such as Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.

Uniform Electronic Transactions Act

In the United States, the concept of electronic signature is wide and set out in Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). UETA was proposed by National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State laws. According to this act, electronic signature means an electronic symbol, sound or process logically related to a record and executed by a person with the intent to sign the record. This act only applies to commercial, business and government matters.

Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act

Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act is a United States law which lays out the guidelines for interstate commerce. The law was enacted to facilitate the usage of electronic signatures and records in interstate as well as foreign commerce ensuring the legal effect and validity of contract entered into electronically. The general intent of the act is that a signature or contract may not be denied validity, legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in the electronic form.

Thus, the main purpose of electronic laws is to define the principles for the legal as well as technical aspects and application of electronic signatures. According to the electronic signature laws, a person who generates electronic certificates, or copy or falsify electronic signatures as in valid, generates unauthorized electronic certificates or knowingly uses them can be sentenced from 2 to 5 years or can be fined.