[papsosouid]

You don't need double opt in unless you are sending them emails. Assuming we're talking about a typical web app, this isn't the case. The method you propose actually has a pretty massive usability flaw. When someone signs up on my site, they are immediately logged in and free to use it. Content they upload/create isn't made visible to other until they confirm their account registration via emailed link. The email verification is to prevent spammers. Signups occur almost always directly because "I want to do X", and if you put a barrier between the sign up and the "do X" like waiting a half hour for an email confirmation, then a significant number of people will simply give up and never complete the signup.

[Xylakant]

Yes, true, there are some cases where you don't need double opt-in, but we're in trade-off territory here [1]. If you decide that your customers value privacy less than usability, fine with me. The point is: It can be done.

[1] Most services that I've signed up to lately log you in once you confirm the email. That's what I regard as the best compromise and for that case, the scheme works perfectly without leaking information.

[papsosouid]

You are confusing two issues. The first is that you don't need double opt in. This is simply the reality, you don't. There is no such German law. The only law like that is that you need to prove people opted in if you send them commercial email.

The second is the usability question. Sites where you can't login until you have received and clicked the activation link are throwing away signups. The usability of "wait a half hour before you can do anything" is really, really poor. You can certainly argue that having fewer signups is a worthwhile trade-off to gain some privacy, and in some cases I might even agree. But I don't think that is true in most cases. As others have pointed out, you get thousands of emails about signup/login/reset related issues when you try not to leak this info. You get zero emails about leaking it.

[Xylakant]

I'm not confusing anything. Yes, technically you're right: Only if I send them commercial emails I need their explicit consent. However, pretty much any email a commercial service sends may treated as a commercial email by a court - even the reminder "you signed up here". There's a whole bunch of special cases where that doesn't hold, however, if you're ever planning on sending emails you're making your companies lawyer sleep better if you have double opt-in.

There's other reasons to use double opt in. I register for your service with no double opt in and I have a typo in my email address. I then log out and forget about it. I just lost my account. Double opt-in prevents that. Think of a forum where you can register with an email address and make public statements - if said forum has no double opt in and you register with my address and slander someone I'd take that forum to court since they neglected to prevent that. I might not win, but the forum would be drawn in the fight.

I know that most corporate lawyers I've worked with get twitchy if you propose removing double opt in - even in cases where it's technically not required. I guess lawyers are more the "play it safe" kind of people.

I agree with you that double opt in is not the silver bullet that magically fixes everything, but as I said - we're deep in trade-off territory here.

I also dispute the point that you get zero emails about leaking the information that someone is registered. I have worked on projects where that information was absolutely privileged and it was of utmost importance that no info about who's registered could be leaked.

[papsosouid]

You clearly are confusing things, because you acting like I am arguing against email confirmations. Your response basically makes no sense as you are ignoring the method I use, and creating a false dichotomy of "double opt in or not".

Your view of the legal situation is laughable. You are welcome to do whatever you like, but don't try to claim it is a legal requirement unless you are going to back that up with facts.

>I also dispute the point that you get zero emails about leaking the information that someone is registered. I have worked on project where that information was absolutely privileged and it was of utmost importance that no info about who's registered could be leaked.

It doesn't seem like you are trying to discuss this in good faith. Read my post again, I was pretty clear that privacy matters in some cases, but that I do not think it is the common case.

[Xylakant]

> It doesn't seem like you are trying to discuss this in good faith. Read my post again, I was pretty clear that privacy matters in some cases, but that I do not think it is the common case.

I am actually trying to discuss in good faith, but you're last sentence in your post is:

> "You get zero emails about leaking it."

That's what I dispute. If information would have leaked on that project I'd have had a very angry email from my customer in the inbox. Probably rather a written letter in the letterbox ;)

I guess basically we're both in agreement. If you go back an re-read my statements, I do agree with you that double opt in is

a) not the golden end of it all and the one-size-fits-all approach won't work b) and legally not required in some cases (though we differ on how many cases there are)

However, I argue that im my experience most projects will end up with double opt in because

a) they're legally required b) or they might be legally required to do so in the future (like when they plan to send advertisement emails) c) they have risk-averse stakeholders that want every anchor they can have in a (potential, probably imaginary) lawsuit that some bone-headed user might trigger.

In any case you're kinda missing my original point: The starting point of the discussion was not that you're required to have a privacy protecting signup scheme. My only point is that it's possible to have one. If you don't need one, that's fine with me.

[papsosouid]

>That's what I dispute.

Because you are taking it out of the context of the implicit "for a typical web app" that had already been established in the previous post.

>I do agree with you that double opt in is

You are still arguing a false dichotomy of "double opt in" vs "not double opt in". Double opt is entirely irrelevant. The only time I mentioned it was pointing out that it is not in any way a legal requirement.

>My only point is that it's possible to have one

Nobody said it wasn't possible. People said it is a huge usability flaw.